lassification/designation, subsistence, protections, discipline and

                                                  1
programs of federal inmates.” Dft. Motion, Declaration of Larry Collins, ¶¶ 5, 7, 11. Transfer

records are specifically kept in the central files. Id., ¶ 11. The facility housing an inmate holds

his central file, so Plaintiff’s file was transferred to El Paso when he was transferred there. Id.

BOP, accordingly, forwarded Plaintiff’s FOIA request to El Paso. Id., ¶ 5.

        On April 1, 2010, staff at El Paso conducted a page-by-page search of Plaintiff’s central

file for responsive records. Id., ¶ 7. The staff located 14 pages responsive to his request in the

“FOI Exempt Section” of his central file. Id. This section contains documents with non-

disclosable information related to inmates. Id. ¶ 7 n.3. The staff forwarded the responsive

documents to BOP’s regional office in Dallas, Texas. Id. ¶ 7.

        On April 8, 2010, BOP notified Plaintiff that it had located 14 pages of responsive

documents. Dft. Motion, Exh. B (April 8 Letter). It informed him, however, that only one page

would be released in its entirety, five pages would be released with redactions, and the remaining

eight pages would be withheld. Id. BOP claimed that the withholdings were justified under

FOIA Exemptions 7(C) and 7(F). Id. Plaintiff then filed this suit challenging these

withholdings. The parties have now filed competing Motions for Summary Judgment. 1 On

August 8, 2011, the Court ordered Defendant to produce the disputed documents for in camera

review. Defendant filed them with the Court on August 15, 2011, and the Court has now

reviewed all pages.

II.     Legal Standard

        Summary judgment may be granted if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute

as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV.

P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986); Holcomb v.


        1
          