## Facts

- Victor Avila Jr., a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, was seriously wounded in a cartel ambush in Mexico in which another agent, Jaime Zapata, was killed.
- Avila and Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the U.S. Department of State seeking records concerning Avila and the attack.
- After an alleged period of agency nonresponse, plaintiffs filed suit to compel production.
- The State Department, in consultation with the FBI and DEA, searched for records and located 138 responsive documents.
- The Department released some records in full or in part and withheld others, invoking FOIA exemptions including Exemption 1 (classified national security/foreign relations information) and Exemption 7(E) (law-enforcement techniques and procedures).
- For at least two documents, the Department’s justification relied on generalized, categorical assertions rather than record-specific explanations.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment addressing the withholdings, explanations (Vaughn submissions), and segregability.

## Issues

1. Whether the State Department properly withheld or redacted information under FOIA Exemption 1 based on classification and predicted harms to national security and U.S.–Mexico relations.
2. Whether the Department properly withheld law-enforcement information under FOIA Exemption 7(E) (and other asserted exemptions).
3. Whether the Department’s declarations and Vaughn materials provided sufficiently specific, nonconclusory explanations tied to particular records and redactions.
4. Whether the Department demonstrated that it released all reasonably segregable nonexempt information.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part both sides’ summary-judgment motions.
- The court upheld many Exemption 1 withholdings where the Department provided detailed, plausible explanations concerning sensitive diplomatic and security assessments and risks to foreign relations and U.S. personnel.
- The court upheld Exemption 7(E) withholdings to the extent the Department identified operational or investigative details whose disclosure could risk circumvention of the law.
- The court denied summary judgment for certain documents where the Department relied on overly conclusory, “blanket” secrecy assertions, requiring supplementation and/or reprocessing.
- The court accepted segregability showings where supported by detailed declarations, but required further explanation where conclusory justifications prevented meaningful review.

## Legal Principles

- FOIA cases are commonly resolved on summary judgment based on agency declarations and Vaughn submissions; agency affidavits receive a presumption of good faith but must be reasonably specific and nonconclusory.
- Under Exemption 1, courts give substantial deference to executive branch predictive judgments about national security and foreign-relations harms when supported by logical, plausible, record-linked explanations.
- Under Exemption 7(E), agencies may withhold law-enforcement techniques and procedures when disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law; generalized assertions are insufficient.
- Agencies must demonstrate segregability by releasing all reasonably segregable nonexempt information; courts may require further explanation where exemption rationales are inadequately supported.

## Conclusion

The court largely sustained the State Department’s FOIA withholdings for classified diplomatic and law-enforcement-sensitive material, but required additional justification or reprocessing for records supported only by conclusory, categorical secrecy claims, including to ensure compliance with segregability obligations.


Avila v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 17-2685, 2022 WL 2104483 (D.D.C. June 10, 2022)