*245Lauren M. Burke, Paul J. Orfanedes, Judicial Watch, Inc., Washington,
DC, for Plaintiff., John Cuong Truong, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District
of Columbia, Michael Hendry Baer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Defendant., Unhappy with FBI's decision to withhold certain records, Judicial Watch
has sued. The government now moves for summary judgment in its favor, arguing that
it has met its FOIA obligations. Judicial Watch has also made a cross-motion for
summary judgment in its favor. Upon review of the entire record, the Court agrees
with the government; the Court will grant its motion and deny Judicial Watch's
cross-motion., Rod Blagojevich was criminally charged with multiple corruption-related
crimes in 2008 after a federal investigation into his activities. Decl. of Debra
Riggs Bonamici (Bonamici Decl.) [Dkt. 13-3] ¶¶ 5-6. After two trials, Mr. Blagojevich
was convicted and appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit. The Seventh Circuit ultimately affirmed his conviction, see United States
v. Blagojevich , 854 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 2017), and denied rehearing en banc , see
Order, Blagojevich , No. 16-3254, ECF No. 53 (7th Cir. June 5, 2017). The parties
briefed the instant motions while Mr. Blagojevich was continuing his appeal; the
public record indicates that, at the time of this Memorandum Opinion's writing,
the Supreme Court had most recently granted Mr. Blagojevich an extension of time
to file a writ of certiorari to November 11, 2017. See Notice, Blagojevich , No.
16-3254, ECF No. 56 (7th Cir. August 4, 2017)., The FBI, a constituent entity of
the Department of Justice, acknowledged receipt of the FOIA Request on May 23, 2012,
and began searching for responsive records. Hardy Decl. ¶ 6. FBI RIDS employees
searched FBI's Central Records System (CRS), a centralized records system encompassing
the entire FBI organization, using the system's Automated Case Support (ACS), an
electronic case management system. Id. ¶¶ 16-18; 22. RIDS searched ACS using a phonetic
breakdown of the name "Rod Blagojevich" and then used further keyword searches within
those records using the names of the individuals named in the FOIA request., After
filing a series of administrative appeals with DOJ, Judicial Watch filed this lawsuit
on September 21, 2016.2 On April 13, 2017, DOJ filed its Motion for Summary Judgment,
see Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. (DOJ MSJ) [Dkt. 13]. Judicial Watch filed its Opposition,
see Pl.'s Opp'n [Dkt. 15] and simultaneously filed a Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment, see Pl.'s Cross-Mot. Summ. J. (Judicial Watch MSJ) [Dkt. 16]. DOJ responded,
see Def.'s Opp'n [Dkt. 17] and Def.'s Reply [Dkt. 18], and Judicial Watch submitted
a final reply, see Pl.'s Reply [Dkt. 21]. The matter is now ripe for the Court's
review., Section 552(a)(4)(B) of the U.S. Code grants subject matter jurisdiction
over all actions brought under FOIA, and makes this an appropriate forum for venue
purposes. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) (2012) ("On complaint, the district court of the
United States in the district in which the complainant resides, or has his principal
place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District
of Columbia, has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records
and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant.");
see Jones v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n , 654 F.Supp. 130, 131 (D.D.C. 1987)., FOIA
"represents a balance struck by Congress between the public's right to know and
the government's legitimate interest in keeping certain information confidential."
Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 331 F.3d 918, 925 (D.C.
Cir. 2003). Under FOIA, federal agencies must release records to the public upon
request, unless one of nine statutory exemptions apply. See NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck
& Co. , 421 U.S. 132, 136, 95 S.Ct. 1504, 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975) ; 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).
To prevail in a FOIA case, a plaintiff must show that an agency has improperly withheld
agency records. See Odland v. FERC , 34 F.Supp.3d 1, 13 (D.D.C. 2014). The defending
agency must demonstrate that its search for responsive records was adequate, that
any invoked exemptions actually apply, and that any reasonably segregable non-exempt
information has been disclosed after redaction of exempt information. See id., *248See
Sanders v. Obama , 729 F.Supp.2d 148, 154 (D.D.C. 2010). Under Rule 56 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment must be granted when "the pleadings,
the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits, show that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2) ; see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The party moving
for summary judgment "bears the initial responsibility ... [to] demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S.
317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary
judgment, a court must draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the nonmoving
party and accept the nonmoving party's evidence as true. See Anderson , 477 U.S.
at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The nonmoving party, however, must provide more than the
"mere existence of a scintilla of evidence .... [T]here must be evidence on which
the jury could reasonably find for the [nonmoving party]." Id. at 252, 106 S.Ct.
2505., An agency may show its search was reasonable, such that summary judgment
in its favor is warranted, through an affidavit by a responsible agency official,
"so long as the declaration is reasonably detailed and not controverted by contrary
evidence or evidence of bad faith." Sanders , 729 F.Supp.2d at 155. Accordingly,
affidavits that include "search methods, locations of specific files searched, descriptions
of searches of all files likely to contain responsive documents, and names of agency
personnel conducting the search are considered sufficient." Citizens for Responsibility
& Ethics v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin. , 583 F.Supp.2d 146, 168 (D.D.C. 2008)
(quoting Ferranti v. BATF , 177 F.Supp.2d 41, 47 (D.D.C. 2001) )., Judicial Watch
does not contest the adequacy of the FBI search for responsive records. Pl.'s Opp'n
at 1 ("Plaintiff seeks only the 302s and therefore takes no issue with the scope
of Defendant's search."). Upon review of the affidavits submitted by DOJ, which
detailed the database search as well as the records identified, the Court concludes
that DOJ met its obligation to conduct a reasonable search., To prevail on a summary
judgment motion in a FOIA case, a defending agency must demonstrate that any withheld
information is exempt from disclosure, and that the agency segregated non-exempt
materials. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). To meet this standard, agencies may provide
"a relatively detailed *249justification through the submission of an index of documents,
known as a Vaughn Index, sufficiently detailed affidavits or declarations, or both."
James Madison Project v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 208 F.Supp.3d 265, 285 (D.D.C.
2016) (quoting Ctr. for Int'l Envtl. Law v. U.S. Trade Representative , 237 F.Supp.2d
17, 22 (D.D.C. 2002) ); see also Vaughn v. Rosen , 484 F.2d 820, 827 (D.C. Cir.
1973)., The bigger point of contention is whether the investigation and prosecution
of Rod Blagojevich is still a "pending law enforcement proceeding." Exemption 7(A)
exists because Congress "recognized that law enforcement agencies had legitimate
needs to keep certain records confidential, lest the agencies be hindered in their
investigations or placed at a disadvantage when it came time to present their cases"
in court. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co. , 437 U.S. at 224, 98 S.Ct. 2311. Still, Exemption
7(A) is not intended to "endlessly protect material simply because it was in an
investigatory file." Id. at 230, 98 S.Ct. 2311. While little caselaw discusses at
what point an investigation can be said to be no longer pending, "[u]sually the
'purpose and point' of an investigation expires when its goal, the holding of
an adjudicatory proceeding, is reached. Hence, an enforcement proceeding can generally
be equated with a trial." Moorefield v. U.S. Secret Serv. , 611 F.2d 1021, 1025
(5th Cir. 1980). Courts have held that "[a] pending appeal of a criminal conviction
qualifies as a pending or prospective law enforcement proceeding for purposes of
Exemption 7(A)," Dugan v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 82 F.Supp.2d 485, 500 (D.D.C.
2015), and courts have also allowed agencies to assert Exemption 7(A) during the
pendency of collateral habeas proceedings brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See King
v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , No. 08-cv-1555, 2009 WL 2951124 at *6 (D.D.C. Sept.
9, 2009) ; Johnson v. FBI , 118 F.Supp.3d 784, 793-95 (E.D. Pa. 2015)., However,
the fact remains that (1) the FD-302s are records contained in a law enforcement
investigative file that (2) is currently being directly appealed. That appeal may
be very short-lived, but it is not the Court's role to guess how or when Rod Blagojevich's
appeal may be resolved. Until the appeal is fully exhausted, disclosure of investigative
materials could be reasonably expected to interfere with whatever occurs going forward.
Rod Blagojevich has not exhausted his options for appeal before the courts, and,
until that time at least, the government is entitled to preserve the strategies,
theories, and impressions found in its investigative files., Because Rod Blagojevich
was already convicted in a public trial, there is an additional concern that records
otherwise exempt under Exemption 7(A) have passed into the public domain. "Under
our public-domain doctrine, materials normally immunized from disclosure under FOIA
lose their protective cloak once disclosed and preserved in a permanent public record."
Cottone v. Reno , 193 F.3d 550, 554 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Had DOJ sought to withhold
its entire file, it may have been appropriate for it to detail which, if any, records
had passed into the public domain as a result of the trial. However, in this instance,
only three records are at issue, none of which is alleged to have been introduced
as an exhibit, or otherwise passed into the public domain. The Court concludes therefore
that DOJ has adequately *251shown that the three FD-302s are exempt from disclosure
under Exemption 7(A).