Whether the records provided to the petitioner through the FOIA process sufficiently complied with the FOIA's disclosure requirements and whether those records were in full compliance with the attestation requirement denying the records' authenticity and reliability

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ‘ : The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 ef seq., provides public access to information held by public authorities.' The Act provides that public , authorities are obligated.to publish certain information about their activities, and . members of the public are entitled to request that information from them. Since the enactment of the FOIA and its processes, courts have been uniform , in providing that “FOIA exemptions should be narrowly construed to favor | disclosure.” Cf. Hanson v. U.S. Agency for Intern, Development, 372 F.3d 286, 290 | (4" Cir. 2004). In other words, information held by public authorities can only be withheld when it is “specifically exempted from disclosure by [another] statute” where ‘ the relevant statute either “requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue" or where the relevant statute , “establishes [a] particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of | matters to be withheld.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)(A)(i), (ii) (2013). | The situation at issue in this case focuses on whether the records provided to the Petitioner, Julian Okeayainneh, through the FOIA process sufficiently complied with the FOJA’s disclosure requirements and, equally important, whether those | records were in full compliance with the attestation requirement denoting the records’ authenticity and reliability as set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and Rule 11(b) of the : Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. , ae In 2019, Mr. Okeayainneh submitted three FOJA requests to various public _ authorities. The first two requests were submitted to the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), | and the third was submitted to the Director of the Office of Information Policy (“OIP”). Each requests asked to be provided with “a copy ofall records of information | order adding restitution per amended judgment, updated on 09/04/2013 under | Criminal No. 11-CR-87(1),” and “a copy of all records of information ordering restitution vacated received on 5/15/2017 under Criminal Case No. 11-CR-87(1).” In . a response letter dated April 15, 2019, the BOP indicated that it had located 95 pages , of responsive documents, of which 65 pages were appropriate for release. The BOP’s April 15, 2019 response also indicated that 30 pages had to be withheld in their | entirety. In other words, the BOP withheld a twenty-eight-page Statement of Reasons , (SOR) in Criminal Case No. 11-CR-00087 under Exception 7(F), and a two-page May | 10, 2017 Order in Criminal Case No. 11-CR-00087 under Exceptions 6 and 7(C). Dissatisfied with the BOP’s response, Mr. Okeayainneh appealed , unsuccessfully to the OJP which upheld the BOP’s determination. After exhausting | See generally 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A) (2013), which provides that, with certain exceptions, an “agency, upon any request for records which (i) reasonably describes such records and (ii) is made in accordance with published rules ..., shall make the records promptly available to any person.” . i ; his administrative remedies, Mr. Okeayainneh, on November 14, 2019, initiated this FOIA civil action against the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the BOP, the Chief Human Resource Officer at the BOP’s Designation and Sentence Computation (“DSCC”), and the Attorney General of the United States (collectively, the “Department”), arguing that the Department “failed to respond to certain of his FOIA requests or properly assert any exemption under FOIA which would justify : withholding the requested records.” (See