Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGGIE B. WALTON, United States District Judge This matter came before the Court on the Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion for. Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 40-41. On March 31, 2014, the Court granted the defendant’s motion in part and denied it in part without prejudice. This Memorandum Opinion sets forth the reasons for the decision. I. BACKGROUND The plaintiff, a federal prisoner, brings this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), see 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2006), against the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), demanding the rélease of records maintained by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and also against the BOP under the Privacy Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 552a (2006). It appears that the information of interest to the plaintiff pertains to the date of his arrest and his eligibility for the death penalty. See Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Monetary Damages in Excess of $10,000, ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 5-6, 11; Plaintiff[’s] Second Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Monetary Damages in Excess of $10,000, ECF No. 10 (“Am.Compl.”) ¶¶ 5-6. A. The Plaintiffs Criminal History The plaintiffs criminal history has been summarized as follows: Throughout the early 1990s, John Pe-trucelli was a member of the Tangle-wood Boys, a violent gang that regularly engaged in murder, armed robbery, burglary, loan sharking, and bookmaking in the Bronx and Westchester County[, New York]. The Tanglewood Boys’ membership was comprised chiefly of young men who wished to become members of the Luchese Organized Crime Family. In the early morning of June 20, 1995, Tanglewood Boy member Darin Mazza-rella was shot by Michael Zanfardino, an associate of the rival Genovese Family. Petrucelli witnessed the shooting. A few hours later, near P.S. 108 in the Bronx, Petrucelli stabbed Paul Cicero, a cousin of a Genovese Family associate, to avenge the shooting of Mazzarella. Sean McKernan, a childhood acquaintance of both Petrucelli and Cicero, saw Petrucelli lunge at Cicero from his position seated on a stoop near P.S. 108, but he did not observe the stabbing because a concrete wall blocked the lower three-quarters of Petrueelli’s and Cicero’s bodies. After Petrucelli left the scene, Cicero passed in front of the stoop where McKernan was sitting and said, “That bastard Johnny just stabbed me” while clutching his stomach. Cicero subsequently bled to death on the operating table at a nearby hospital. On June 21, 1995, the day after the shooting and stabbing, Steven Crea, the Underboss of the Luchese Family, summoned Petrucelli to a meeting. Crea explained that the Genovese Family had contacted him to prevent the Tangle-wood Boys from taking revenge against Zanfardino. Petrucelli informed Crea that he had stabbed Cicero in response to Mazzarella’s shooting. Petrucelli then fled to Las Vegas, where he stayed with his grandmother, and later his aunt and uncle, for several weeks. A few days later, Acting Boss of the Genovese Family, Liborio Bellomo, requested a'meeting with Joseph Defede, the Acting Boss of the Luchese Family, to discuss the circumstances surrounding the shooting and stabbing. Bellomo asked Defede to ensure that the Tangle-wood Boys not to [sic] pursue Zanfardi-no and argued that the Cicero murder constituted sufficient revenge against the Genovese Family for Mazzarella’s shooting. Defede granted Bellomo’s request. In early 1996, after Mazzarella had recovered from his gunshot wounds, he met with Defede to discuss his desire to retaliate against Zanfardino. Defede explained that revenge would be unjustified because of Cicero’s murder and instructed Mazzarella not to exact retribution. Several days later, at Defede’s request, Mazzarella and Zanfardino met and formally called a truce. Petrucelli v. United States, No. 05-cv-9582, 2009 WL 4858081, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2009). “The original indictment against [the], plaintiff resulted from a long FBI investigation into [the] plaintiff[’s] ... organized crime activities.” Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 23 (“Def.’s First Mem.”), Declaration of David M. Hardy (“Hardy Decl.”) ¶ 5. Ultimately, the plaintiff was charged with and convicted of murder in aid of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1), and is serving a term of life imprisonment. Hardy Decl. ¶ 5; see United States v. Petrucelli, 97 Fed.Appx. 355 (2d Cir.2004) (affirming conviction on direct appeal). The plaintiff alleges that “[o]n January 28, 2002[, he] was arrested by F.B.I. Agents Orango and Munger,” Am. Compl. ¶ 10, with the assistance of “a fully armed F.B.I. Swat team,” id. ¶ 11. He further alleges that he “was phptographed and fingerprinted by F.B.I. Agents while being held in the White Plains headquarters” office, id. ¶ 13, after which he “was transported by ... Agents Orango and Munger to [the BOP’s Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York (MDC Brooklyn) ] at about 5:00 PM” on that same date. Id. ¶ 15. These agents, the plaintiff alleges, transported him from MDC Brooklyn “to his arraignment at [the] Manhattan Federal Court” on February 1, 2002. Id. ¶ 16. The plaintiff apparently believes that responsive records showing an “original arrest date of January 28, 20[0]2, and favorable evidence ... could exculpate [him] from unlawful confinement.” Affidavit of Facts in Support of []Notiee[] of Missing Facts of Evidence, ECF No. 27 ¶ 4. B. The Plaintiffs Request for Amendment of BOP Records Through the BOP’s administrative remedy procedure, see Def.’s First Mem., Declaration of Donna Johnson, ECF No. 23-2 (“Johnson Deck”) ¶¶ 9-10, on September 11, 2011, the plaintiff submitted the following request to the Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution in Manchester, Kentucky: I am writing in reference to my record date of arrest and arrival to [the] BOP ... as being incorrect. “1/31/02” I ask ... that my arrest date and arrival to M.D.C. Brooklyn reflect the correct date of Jan. 28[,] 2002.... I ... ask for my records to be amended showing [my] actual arrest, incarceration at M.D.C. Brooklyn being Jan. 28, 2002. Johnson Deck, Ex. B (Request for Administrative Remedy dated September 11, 2011). After having reviewed “the U.S. Marshals Report, Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), Prisoner Remand Form, and the SENTRY data base,” and after having made “contact with the FBI’s field office in the Southern District of New York,” the Acting Warden informed the plaintiff that his “date of arrest in Yonkers, New York, and subsequent delivery to MDC Brooklyn [was] January 31, 2002.” Id., Ex. B (Request for Administrative Remedy, Remedy ID # 656846-F1, Part B—Response from R.D. Ranum, Acting Warden, dated October 4, 2011). He further stated that “[t]here [was] no documentation which indicates an earlier date of arrest.” Johnson Deck ¶ 12. The plaintiffs administrative appeal to the BOP’s Mid-Atlantic Regional Office of the denial to amend his BOP records was subsequently denied. Id.; see id., Ex. B (Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal, Part B—Response from C. Eichenlaub, Regional Director, Mid-Atlantic Region, BOP, dated November 22, 2011). C. The Plaintiffs Requests for BOP Records 1. FOIA/PA Request Number 2010-07999 In the plaintiffs first FOIA request to the BOP, he sought the following: (1) any and all records, reports, files, memos and materials to include electronic filings that contain any information concerning my initial intake screening on January 28, 2002 at [MDC Brooklyn]; (2) a copy of the log book on January 28, 2002 at [MDC Brooklyn] when I was delivered into their custody; (3) Copy of the warrant being executed for my arrest and delivery to [MDC Brooklyn]; (4) Copy of fingerprint card taken during intake screening and other data taken by ... MDC officials or staff upon my intake and processing; [and] (5) copy of medical information taken by medical staff at [MDC Brooklyn] during my medical screening on January 28, 2002[.] Johnson Deck, Ex. C (Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act request dated March 12, 2010) at 1. Because the plaintiff was incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Canaan, Pennsylvania (“USP Canaan”) at the time of this request, its Legal Services Department staff and the Secretary of the plaintiffs Unit Team searched for medical and other records responsive to the request, which had been assigned FOIA Request Number 2010-07999. See id., Ex. D-E (email messages dated May 20, 2010 and May 24, 2010, respectively). Of 56 pages of records deemed responsive to the request, the BOP released 55 pages in full and withheld one page in full under FOIA Exemption 7(F). Id. ¶¶ 20-21; see id., Ex. F (Letter to the plaintiff from Henry J. Sadowski, Regional Counsel, Northeast Regional Office, BOP, dated September 21, 2010). The plaintiff pursued an administrative appeal to the DOJ’s Office of Information Policy (“OIP”), id. ¶ 46, which remanded the matter to the BOP, id. ¶ 49. At the time the BOP’s declarant executed her declaration following the remand, the agency had not yet completed the re-processing of the records. Id. ¶ 52. The BOP thereafter reviewed 22 pages of records, 18 of which were released in full and three of which were released in redacted form after information was deleted pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C), ad 7(F). Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 31, Ex. 8 (Letter to the plaintiff from Michael D. Tafel-ski, Regional Counsel, Northeast Regional Office, BOP, dated October 4, 2012). 2. FOIA/PA Request Number 2010-08695 The plaintiffs second FOIA request to the BOP sought “a record of a telephone call placed on Jan[uary] 28, 2002 to phone number # 914-345-2815.” Johnson Deck, Ex. G (Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act request dated March 16, 2010). It was “determined that [the plaintiff] was not in BOP custody on January 28, 2002, the date of the call he requested.” Id. ¶ 24. For this reason, the BOP’s de-clarant “concluded that there were no records responsive to [the] request,” and the plaintiff was so notified. Id.; see id., Ex. H (Letter to the plaintiff from Henry J. Sadowski dated June 8, 2010). The OIP affirmed this determination in response to the plaintiffs administrative appeal. Id. ¶¶ 53-54; see id. Ex. CC (Letter to the plaintiff from Anne D. Work, Senior Counsel, Administrative Appeals Staff, OIP, dated May 18, 2011). 3. FOIA/PA Request Number 2010-09077 The plaintiffs third FOIA request to the BOP sought: (1) Any and all records, reports, files, memos, and materials to include electronic filings that contain any information concerning my Death Penalty Status. (2) “Notice” That the Gov’t believes that circumstances are justified for a sentence of death. (3) Any known aggravating factors that [the] government, if the defendant is convicted, proposed to prove. (4) Any substantive motion or activity connected to Death Penalty. (5) Any mitigation memorandum submitted by counsel.... Id., Ex. I (Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act request dated March 22, 2010) at 1. Staff at USP Canaan located one responsive record, id. ¶28, and that document was withheld in its entirety under Exemption 5, id. ¶ 29. The plaintiff was notified that the document was being withheld, id.; see id., Ex. K (Letter to plaintiff from Henry J. Sadowski dated July 30, 2010), and he successfully administratively appealed that determination to the OIP; on remand, the BOP released the document in its entirety. Id. ¶¶ 57-58. 4. FOIA/PA Request Number 2010-10411 The plaintiffs fourth FOIA request to the BOP sought the “detention order[] issued on Janfuary] 28 or Jan[uary] 29[,] 2002,” which purportedly indicated that the plaintiff was “waiting on a ‘Captain’s Review.’ ” Id. ¶ 30; see id., Ex. L (Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act request dated June 30, 2010). No responsive records were found, id. ¶¶ 32-33, and the plaintiff was so informed, see id., Ex. N (Letter to the plaintiff from Henry J. Sadowski dated August 2, 2010). The plaintiffs administrative appeal of this determination was rejected as untimely. Id. ¶¶ 59-60; see id., Ex. FF (Letter to the plaintiff from Anne D. Work dated February 23, 2011). 5. FOIA/PA Request Number 2011-01572 In his fifth FOIA request to the BOP, the plaintiff sought: The compiled file containing the signing in of John A. Petrucelli by FBI Agent or Agents F. Orango and C. Munger to MDC Brooklyn on Jan[uary] 28, 2002 at approximately 6:00 pm. Also the signing out of inmate John A. Petrucelli on Feb[ruary] 1[,] 2002 at approximately 6:30 AM by FBI Agent or Agents F. Orango and C. Munger. Id., Ex. O (Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act request dated October 18, 2010). A search of records maintained at MDC Brooklyn yielded nothing responsive to the request. Id. ¶ 41. A search of the plaintiffs Central File did yield 15 pages of responsive records, see id. ¶¶ 42, 44, and 12 of these pages were released in full, id. ¶ 45; see id., Ex. V (Letter to the plaintiff from Michael D. Tafelski dated July 23, 2012) at 1. The three remaining pages were released in part after redacting information under FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(F). Id. ¶ 45. D. The Plaintiffs Requests for EOUSA Records 1. Request Number 03-2265 The plaintiff sought information from the EOUSA, including files, police reports, and videotapes, “believed to be within the possession of the [United States Attorney’s Office] for the Southern District of New York” and “in relation to [his] criminal prosecution in the United States District Court in New York, New York in the criminal case titled and numbered under United States v. John Petrucelli, No. 02CR[ ]099.” Def.’s First Mem., Declaration of David Luczynski (“Luczynski Deck”), Ex. A (Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Request dated July 1, 2003). The EOUSA denied the request in full, id. ¶ 6, relying on FOIA Exemptions 3, 5, 7(A), 7(C), 7(D), and 7(F), id., Ex. C (Letter to the plaintiff from Marie A. O’Rourke, Assistant Director, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Staff, EOUSA, dated October 30, 2003). In addition, the EOUSA notified the plaintiff that it located approximately 2,112 pages of public records that he could obtain from the Clerk of Court of the Southern District of New York directly. Id., Ex. C at 2. 2. Request Number 04-2972 The plaintiffs second FOIA request to the EOUSA also sought information pertaining to the prosecution of his criminal case. See id., Ex. F (Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Request dated June 18, 2004). Specifically, the plaintiff requested: Books, Papers, Photographs, Recorded Tapes, Files, Reports, Records, Video Tapes, Police Reports, and Other Documentary Materials or Data, regardless of physical form or characteristic made or received by any officer or employee of your agency relating to, regarding, or naming me. Id., Ex. F at 1. The plaintiff provided the title and number of the criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and agreed to pay any fees associated with the request. Id. EOUSA staff located records responsive to the request and released 40 pages of records in full, released 12 pages in part, and withheld two pages in full. Id. ¶ 10. In addition, agency staff referred 65 pages of records to the FBI for its direct response to the plaintiff. Id.; see id., Ex. G (Letter to the plaintiff from Marie A. O’Rourke dated December 29, 2004) at 2. The ' plaintiff administratively appealed these decisions and the OIP affirmed the determinations. Id. ¶ 11; see id., Ex. I (Letter to the plaintiff from M.A. O’Rourke dated September 12, 2008). E. The Plaintiffs Requests for FBI Records 1. FOIPA No. 1000298-000 On June 18, 2004, the plaintiff made a “request[] for all records about himself ... to the FBI.” Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss and to Defendant[’]s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 64 (“PL’s Opp’n”) at 5 (page numbers designed by the plaintiff). Responsive records, the plaintiff believed, would have been “located in Washington, DC, White Plains, New York, and Manhattan, New York agency offices, possibly in relation, but not limited to [his] criminal prosecution, Case #: 02CR00099-01 (TPG) United States v. John A. Petrucelli, prosecuted within the Southern [DJistriet of New York, which stemmed from State of New York v. Darin Mazzarella (Yonkers, NY).” Defendant’s Reply in Further Support of its Renewed Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 67 (“Def.’s Reply”), Second Declaration of David M. Hardy (“Second Hardy Decl.”), Ex. A (Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Request dated June 18, 2004). The FBI acknowledged receipt of the request, which was designated FOIPA No. 1000298-000. See Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 3 (Letter to the plaintiff from David M. Hardy, Section Chief, Record/Information Dissemination Section, Records Management Division, FBI, dated July 1, 2004). On September 7, 2004, the plaintiff submitted another request for the same information, see Second Hardy Decl. ¶ 8, noting that responsive records were “believed to be located at Agency Headquarters and in the Southern District of New York agency offices,” pertaining to his own criminal case or the case of Darin Mazzarella, id., Ex. C (Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Request dated September 7, 2004). It does not appear that the FBI assigned the September 7, 2004 request a tracking number or that it conducted a separate search in response to it. The FBI denied the plaintiffs June 18, 2004 request in its entirety, see id. ¶ 9,-relying on FOIA Exemptions 7(A) and 7(C), id., Ex. D (Letter to the plaintiff from D.M. Hardy dated September 29, 2004). This determination was affirmed on administrative appeal to the OIP, see id., Second Hardy Decl. ¶¶ 10-12, on the ground that the responsive records were “protected from disclosure under [FOIA Exemption 7(A) ],” id., Ex. G (Letter to the plaintiff from Janice Galli McLeod, Associate Director, OIP, dated December 31, 2007). 2. FOIPA No. 1019355-000 The FBI reviewed 65 pages of records referred to the FBI by the EOUSA and determined that all of the records were exempt from disclosure in full under FOIA Exemptions 7(A), 7(C) and 7(D). Def.’s First Mem., Declaration of David M. Hardy (“Hardy Deck”) ¶ 8; see id., Ex. B (Letter to the plaintiff from David M. Hardy, Chief, Records/Information Dissemination Section, Records Management Division, FBI). This determination was affirmed on administrative appeal by the OIP. Id. ¶¶ 9-10; see generally id., Ex. D (Letter to the plaintiff from Janice Galli McLeod, Associate Director, OIP, dated September 12, 2008) at 1. “Upon ... the filing of the instant complaint, the FBI conducted another review of the referred records” and determined that FOIA Exemption 7(A) “no longer applied since the investigation was no longer pending.” Second Hardy Deck ¶ 14. However, because “the information previously [protected under] FOIA Exemption [ ]7(A) still warranted protection pursuant to other applicable FOIA exemptions,” the. FBI withheld all of the records “in their entirety.” Id. ¶ 14; see generally id., Ex. I (deleted page information sheets). 3. FOIPA No. 1150194-000 The plaintiff submitted a separate FOIA request to the FBI for “[a]ny and all records, reports, files, memos, and materials to include electronic filings that contain any information concerning [his] arrest date,” purported to be January 28, 2002. Hardy Deck, Ex. E (Letter to D.M. Hardy from the plaintiff dated June 7, 2010) at 1. A search of the FBI’s Central Records System initially yielded 913 pages of potentially responsive records. Id. ¶ 15; see id., Ex. I (Letter to the plaintiff from D.M. Hardy dated January 18, 2011). On further review, the FBI determined that only 760 pages of records were actually responsive to the request, id. ¶21 n.6, and of these records, 495 pages were released in full on April 16, 2012, id. ¶ 21. One of these records was “a report by FBI Special Agents, dated February 1, 2005, documenting the January 31, 2002 arrest of [the plaintiff].” Id. ¶22; see id., Ex. P. “Of the remaining 265 pages, 246 were withheld in full pursuant to [FOIA Exemptions 3, 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F),] and 19 pages were withheld in full as duplicates.” Id. ¶ 2 1; see id., Ex. 0 (Letter to the plaintiff from D.M. Hardy dated April 16, 2012). II. DISCUSSION A. The Plaintiffs Privacy Act Claims Notwithstanding the filing of the plaintiffs amended complaint, it is not clear that he has abandoned the Privacy Act claims raised in the original complaint, particularly his claims against the BOP under the amendment, accuracy and damages provisions of the Privacy Act. See Compl. at 2. The plaintiffs Request for Administrative Remedy asked, “[i]n accordance with ... 5 USC § 552a(d) ... for [his] records to be amended showing actual arrest, incarceration at MDC Brooklyn being Jan[uary] 28, 2002.” Johnson Deck, Ex. B. He also demanded that the BOP “[m]aintain all records accurately.” Id. Lastly, the plaintiff demanded a declaratory judgment that the BOP is “liable for using erroneous information to make determinations adverse to [him] in three separate court proceedings in violation of sections (e)(5)[J (g)(1)(c) and (g)(4) of the [P]rivacy [A]ct.” Compl. at 2. The defendant represents that the Inmate Central File contains records pertaining to an inmate’s arrest, and that the system of records where Inmate Central Files are maintained is exempt from the Privacy Act’s amendment, accuracy and damages provisions. See Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 40] (“Def.’s Renewed Mem.”) at 12; Defendant’s Statement of Material Facts To Which There Is No Genuine Dispute ¶¶ 1-2. The plaintiff deems the defendant’s “brief ... particularly confusing ... where [it] argues that various records systems are exempt under the Privacy Act.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 23-24. He argues instead that he made his requests for information under the Privacy Act as well as the FOIA, and the applicability of the Privacy Act does not “exempt [any information] from release under the FOIA, except insofar as [the information] fall[s] under one of the seven FOIA exemptions.” Id. at 24; see id. at 4 n.7. The plaintiff, however, does not respond substantively to the defendant’s argument that information contained in the Inmate Central File is exempt from the Privacy Act’s amendment, accuracy and damages provisions. He has thus conceded this point, see, e.g., Maydak v. DOJ, 579 F.Supp.2d 105, 107 (D.D.C.2008), and the Court therefore will grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs Privacy Act claims. B. The Plaintiffs FOIA Claims 1. Summary Judgment Standard of Review in a FOIA Case “FOIA cases typically and appropriately are decided on motions for summary judgment.” Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Border Patrol, 623 F.Supp.2d 83, 87 (D.D.C.2009). Courts will grant summary judgment to an agency as the movant if it shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and if the agency is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). More specifically, in a FOIA action to compel production of agency records, the agency “is entitled to summary judgment if no material facts are in dispute and if it demonstrates ‘that each document that falls within the class requested either has been produced ... or is wholly exempt from the [FOIA’s] inspection requirements.’ ” Students Against Genocide v. Dep’t of State, 257 F.3d 828, 833 (D.C.Cir.2001) (quoting Goland v. CIA 607 F.2d 339, 352 (D.C.Cir.1978)). Summary judgment in a FOIA case may be based solely on information provided in an agency’s supporting affidavits or declarations if they are “relatively detailed and nonconelusory,” Safecard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C.Cir.1991) (internal quotations and citations omitted), and when they [describe the documents and the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail, demonstrate that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption, and are not controverted by either contrary evidence in the record [or] by evidence of agency bad faith. Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C.Cir.1981). “To successfully challenge an agency’s showing that it complied with the FOIA, the plaintiff must come forward with ‘specific facts’ demonstrating that there is a genuine issue with respect to whether the agency has improperly withheld extant agency records.” Span v. DOJ, 696 F.Supp.2d 113, 119 (D.D.C.2010) (quoting DOJ v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 142, 109 S.Ct. 2841, 106 L.Ed.2d 112 (1989)). 2. The Agencies’ Searches for Responsive Records a. EOUSA “The ‘LIONS’ system is the computer system used by United States Attorneys offices to track cases and to retrieve files pertaining to cases and investigations.” Luczynski Decl. ¶ 13. Through LIONS, “the user can access databases which can be used to retrieve ... information based on a defendant’s name, the USAO number (United States[ ] Attorney’s Office internal administrative number), and the district court case number.” Id. “Each United States Attorney’s Office maintains the case files for criminal matters prosecuted by that office.” Id. The plaintiff identified himself and his criminal case by number and judicial district in each of his two FOIA requests to the EOUSA. See id. Ex. A and F. “Upon receiving the [plaintiffs] request,” the EOUSA “forwarded the request to the FOIA Contact for the Southern District of New York.” Id. ¶ 13. “The FOIA Contact” searched “for records on ‘John A. Petru-celli’ to determine the location of any and all files relating to [the] plaintiff in order to comply with his request,” and “for records from the case files in Case # 02CR00099-01, the criminal prosecution case [the] plaintiff identified in his request.” Def.’s Renewed Mem., Declaration of David Luczynski [ECF No. 40-4] (“Second Luczynski Deck”) ¶ 13. The FOIA Contact not only queried LIONS, but also “sent emails to the Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York Criminal Division to ascertain whether [that office] had any responsive records.” Id. Because the “plaintiffs prosecution took place in the Southern District of New York, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia would not have records related to [his] prosecution.” Id. ¶ 13. The declarant avers that “[t]here are no other records systems or locations within the EOUSA or DOJ in which other files pertaining to [the] plaintiff were maintained.” Id. Thus, he states, “[a]ll documents responsive to [the] plaintiffs FOIA request have been located through the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.” Id. ¶ 14; see Luczynski Deck ¶¶ 13-14. The plaintiff counters that, notwithstanding his stated belief that responsive records might be found in the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”), “he had no possible way of knowing where they were kept,” and the EOUSA improperly limited the scope of its search “to only those files kept in the SDNY.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 11. The plaintiff also noted the EOU-SA’s failure to locate his “case file, despite the fact that the [p]laintiff mentioned [his] case number twice in each FOIA request.” Id', at 11-12. According to the plaintiff the EOUSA thus ignored his July 18, 2004 request for the same records insofar as it stated the plaintiffs “belie[f] the records were located in both Washington, D.C. and the Southern District of New York.” Id. at 11. The plaintiff acknowledges that he was prosecuted in the Southern District of New York, and puts forth no valid reason to suspect that records related to his criminal case likely would be located in any other federal district. Nor is there any basis to conclude that responsive EOUSA records would have included “exculpatory materials originating from ... the [New York] State Police.” Id. at 13-14. Nor does the plaintiff proffer any authority for the proposition that a federal agency is obliged to consult with or to retrieve documents from a state law enforcement agency. “Adequacy and reasonableness turn not on the yield of the search, but on the ‘appropriateness of the methods used to carry out the search.’ ” Waldner v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 981 F.Supp.2d 14, 18 (D.D.C.2013) (citing Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311, 315 (D.C.Cir.2003)). The plaintiffs challenge pertains only to the results of the EOU-SA’s search, and such an assertion alone is far too weak to undermine the defendant’s entitlement to summary judgment. b. FBI The FBI’s Central Records System (“CRS”) includes “administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel, and other files compiled for law enforcement purposes,” and “consists of a numerical sequence of files broken down according to subject matter.” Hardy Decl. ¶ 24. The subject matter of a CRS file “may relate to an individual, organization, company, publication, activity or foreign intelligence matter (or program).” Id. FBI Headquarters maintains certain CRS records; FBI field offices maintain those CRS records “that are pertinent to specific field offices.” Id. In order to search the CRS, “the FBI uses ... the Automated Case Support System (‘ACS’)” Id. FBI Headquarters and Field Offices access the CRS using alphabetically ordered General Indices. Id. ¶¶ 25-26. “The General Indices consist of index cards on various subject matters that are searched either manually or though the automated indices.” Id. ¶ 25. There are two categories of General Indices: (a) A “main” entry — A “main” entry, or “main” file, carries the name corresponding with a subject of a file contained in the CRS. (b) A “reference” entry — A “reference” entry, sometimes called a “cross reference,” is generally only a mere mention or reference to an individual, organization, or other subject matter, contained in a document located in another “main” file on a different subject matter. Id. “Searches made in the General Indi-ces to locate records concerning a particular subject, such as John A. Petrucelli, are made by searching the subject requested in the index.” Id. ¶ 26. Since 1995, FBI Headquarters, Field Offices and Legal Attaches use the ACS system, which “consolidate^] portions of the CRS that were previously automated.” Id. ¶ 27. “Because the CRS cannot electronically query the case files for data, such as an individual’s name or [Sjocial [Sjecurity number, the required information is duplicated and moved to the ACS so that it can be searched.” Id. “ACS consists of three integrated, yet separately functional, automated applications that support case management functions for all FBI investigative and administrative cases.” Id. ¶28. The Investigative Case Management application “provides the ability to open, assign, and close investigative and administrative cases [and to] set, assign, and track leads.” Id. ¶ 28(a). Each new case is assigned a Universal Case File Number, “which is utilized by all FBI field offices ... and FBI [Headquarters] ... conducting or assisting in the investigation.” Id. The Electronic Case File application “serves as the ... electronic repository for the FBI’s official text-based documents.” Id. ¶ 28(b). The Universal Index application provides “a complete subject/case index to all investigative and administrative cases.” Id. ¶ 28(c). The FBI does not index every name in its files; an FBI Special Agent assigned to an investigation decides which information is “pertinent, relevant, or essential for future retrieval,” and indexes the information accordingly. Id. ¶ 29. Without an index “to this enormous amóunt of data, information essential to ongoing investigations could not be readily retrieved,” and the agency’s files “would thus be merely archival in nature.” Id. “[T]he General Indices to the CRS are the means by which the FBI can determine what retrievable information, if any, [it] may have in its CRS files on a particular subject matter,” such as the plaintiff. Id. Electronic surveillance indices (“EL-SUR”) “maintain information on a subject whose electronic and/or voice communications have been intercepted as a result of a consensual electronic surveillance and/or a court-ordered (and/or sought) electronic surveillance conducted by the FBI.” Id. ¶ 30. “The ELSUR indices are a separate system of records from the CRS,” id. and “include individuals who were the (a) targets of direct surveillance, (b) participants in monitored conversations, and (c) owners, leasers, or licensors of the premises where the FBI conducted electronic surveillance,” id. ¶ 31. Both FBI Headquarters and FBI field offices maintain EL-SUR indices. Id. ¶¶ 30, 33. In response to the plaintiffs June 7, 2010 request, using the plaintiffs name and variations of his name as search terms, FBI staff “conducted a search of the automated indices to the CRS to identify all potentially responsive main FBI Headquarters files indexed to John A. Pe-trucelli.” Hardy Decl. ¶ 35. In addition to any main FBI Headquarters files indexed to the plaintiffs name, this search would have “identified any file indexed under [the] plaintiffs name, including both main and/or cross-references, as well as any potentially responsive file from any FBI field office.” Second Hardy Decl. ¶22. The search identified two New York Field Office files. Id.; see Hardy Decl. ¶35. A search of the FBI’s ELSUR Indices, using the plaintiffs name, variations of the plaintiffs name, his date of birth, Social Security Number and FBI number as search terms, yielded no responsive records. Hardy Decl. ¶ 36. According to the FBI’s declarant, the CRS search in response to the plaintiffs June 18,’ 2004 request “was completed using the same search parameters,” yielding “files 281A-NY25430 and 281A-NY-269024.” Second Hardy Decl. ¶ 23. Both files contained “various subfiles that were also processed for [the] plaintiff,” and were indeed “the same ones located in the search conducted in 2010.” Id. Where responsive records “were from multi-sub-ject investigative files[,] only the portions of the files that pertained exclusively to [the plaintiff] were considered for processing.” Id. ¶ 24. “Records pertaining to other subjects of the file were not considered responsive to [the] plaintiffs request.” Id. ¶ 25. The plaintiff challenges both the scope and the outcome of the FBI’s searches for responsive records. He opines that “[t]he FBI’s file should be at least five thousand pages long,” PL’s Opp’n at 3, and finds it “inconceivable that only 500 pages of records exist for this case,” id. at 1, particularly in light of the “seven-year investigation and prosecution under RICO [for] the murder of Paul Cicero,” id. and the involvement of “numerous alleged co-conspirators,” id. at 3. In addition, he objects to the FBI’s decision to limit its searches to records maintained in New York, notwithstanding his belief that records also may have been located in Washington, D.C. Id. at 11. The FBI’s failure to produce particular documents, or the plaintiffs “mere speculation that as yet uncovered documents might exist, does not undermine” the adequacy of the searches. Wilbur v. CIA, 355 F.3d 675, 678 (D.C.Cir.2004) (per curiam). The declarant explains that the CRS searches would have located not only FBI Headquarters files indexed to the plaintiffs name, but also any other file indexed to the plaintiffs name, including “main and/or’ cross-references, as well as any potentially responsive file from any [FBI] field office.” Second Hardy Decl. ¶22. The Court concludes that the searches conducted by the FBI were reasonable under the circumstances of this ease. 3. FOIA Exemptions a. Exemption 5 FOIA Exemption 5 protects from disclosure “inter-agency or miraagency memorand[a] or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). “[T]he parameters of Exemption 5 are determined by reference to the protections available to litigants in civil discovery; if material is not available in discovery, it may be withheld from FOIA requesters.” Burka v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 87 F.3d 508, 516 (D.C.Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks omitted); see NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 148, 95 S.Ct. 1504, 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975). This exemption “is interpreted to encompass ... three evidentiary privileges: the deliberative process privilege, the attorney-client privilege, and the attorney work product privilege.” Tax Analysts v. IRS, 294 F.3d 71, 76 (D.C.Cir.2002); see Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 905 F.Supp.2d 161, 173 (D.D.C.2012) (citations omitted). i. The Deliberative Process Privilege The deliberative process privilege “shields only government ‘materials which are both predecisional and deliberative.’ ” Tax Analysts v. IRS, 117 F.3d 607, 616 (D.C.Cir.1997) (quoting Wolfe v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 839 F.2d 768, 774 (D.C.Cir.1988) (en banc)). “To show that a document is predecisional, the agency need not identify a specific final agency decision; it is sufficient to establish ‘what deliberative process is involved, and the role played by the documents at issue in the course of that process.’ ” Heggestad v. DOJ, 182 F.Supp.2d 1, 7 (D.D.C.2000) (quoting Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep’t of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 868 (D.C.Cir. 1980)). A document is “deliberative” if “it makes recommendations or expresses opinions on legal or policy matters.” Vaughn v. Rosen, 523 F.2d 1136, 1144 (D.C.Cir.1975). The deliberative process privilege is thought to “prevent injury to the quality of agency decisions.” Sears, Roebuck, 421 U.S. at 151, 95 S.Ct. 1504. Such protection is designed to encourage frank discussion of policy matters, prevent premature disclosure of proposed policies, and avoid public confusion that may result from disclosure of rationales that were not ultimately grounds for agency action. See, e.g., Russell v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 682 F.2d 1045, 1048 (D.C.Cir.1982). ii. The Attorney Work Product Privilege “The work-product doctrine shields materials ‘prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party’s representative.’ ” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. DOJ, 432 F.3d 366, 369 (D.C.Cir.2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3)); see Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). Records may be withheld as attorney work product if they contain the “mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of a party’s attorney” and were “prepared in anticipation of litigation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3)(B); see Miller v. DOJ, 562 F.Supp.2d 82, 115 (D.D.C.2008) (concluding that documents which “reflect such matters as trial preparation, trial strategy, interpretation, personal evaluations and opinions pertinent to [a plaintiffs] criminal case” qualify as aitorney work product under FOIA Exemption 5); Heggestad, 182 F.Supp.2d at 8 (stating that the attorney work product privilege “covers factual materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, as well as mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories”). Both the deliberative process privilege and the attorney work product privilege may apply to the same information. See, e.g., Miller, 562 F.Supp.2d at 114-15 (concluding that draft grand jury indictment, trial attorney certification and draft affidavit supporting a request for the plaintiffs extradition were protected under Exemption 5 insofar as they reflected “predecisional communications among government personnel such as discussions of various litigation issues, alternatives, and strategies,” and “such matters as trial preparation, trial strategy, interpretation, personal evaluations and opinions pertinent to [the plaintiffs] criminal case”); Heggestad, 182 F.Supp.2d at 8-12 (concluding that prosecution memoranda prepared by attorneys to assist their superiors in determining whether to authorize prosecution of the targets of a criminal investigation prior to the final decision to prosecute properly were withheld under Exemption 5). The FBI “cite[s] the deliberative process privilege” as the basis for withholding in full an eight-page document, which the declarant describes as containing “a break down of the investigative steps used during the investigation of [the] plaintiff, and [which] was gathered and used by the prosecution prior to the trial of [the] plaintiff.” Hardy Decl. ¶ 51. The EOUSA relies on both the deliberative process privilege and the attorney work product privilege, see Luczynski Decl. ¶¶ 20-24; Second Luczynski Decl. ¶¶ 22-26, to protect records or portions of records identified as “drafts of an indictment, emails between attorneys, drafts of a pros-ecutorial memorandum, and ... pages ... [hand]written by attorneys preparing the case.” Second Luczynski Decl. ¶ 26. Its declarant states “[t]he records or portions of records” at issue “include information related to trial preparation, trial strategy, interpretations, and personal evaluations and opinions pertinent to [the] plaintiffs criminal case,” as well as “deliberations concerning asset forfeiture decisions [and] possible strategies as they relate to the case.” Id. ¶24. “[I]n certain instances,” the declarant explains, the records “contain the deliberative process of the United States Attorney’s Office and other federal and state agencies in their consideration of possible criminal actions against [the] plaintiff.” Id. ¶ 25. The records not only were “prepared by, or at the request or direction of an attorney, ... in anticipation of, or during litigation,” id. ¶ 24, but also included “pre-decisional communications among government personnel such as discussions of various litigation issues, alternatives, and strategies,” id. ¶ 25. Thus, the declarant asserts, “[t]he attorney work product and deliberative process are so interwoven as to make ... all [of the information], in essence, attorney work product.” Id. ¶ 25. The plaintiff counters that “[t]he files of the EOUSA are not all attorney work product or all attorney-client communications.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 21. Rather, he argues, because these files “should contain voluminous materials from the FBI and N.Y. State Police,” they “are law enforcement records and not prepared under the direction of an attorney.” Id. He contends, therefore, that FOIA Exemption 7, not FOIA Exemption 5, should apply. Id. Further, the plaintiff asserts that the records should be processed under FOIA Exemption 7, analyzed for privilege, and any “[withheld records should be accounted for in a privilege log, which in this context becomes part of the [(defendant’s Vaughn Index.” Id. The Court rejects the plaintiffs arguments for the following reasons. The plaintiff merely speculates as to the content of records maintained by the EOUSA. The declarant does not indicate that the EOUSA acquired records originating with the New York State Police. Moreover, insofar as the EOUSA’s records included records originating with the FBI, the declarant explains that these records had been referred to the FBI. See Luczynski Decl. ¶¶ 10-11; Second Luczynski Decl. ¶ 10. The plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the records or portions of records withheld under FOIA Exemption 5 are law enforcement records to which FOIA Exemption 7 applies, or that these DOJ components are obligated to account for privileged material by any means other than through their supporting declarations. “The function of a Vaughn index is essentially to ‘enable[ ] the adversary system to operate by giving the requester as much information as possible, on the basis of which he can present his case to the trial court.’ ” Coleman v. FBI, 972 F.Supp. 5, 7 (D.D.C.1997) (alteration in original) (quoting Keys v. DOJ, 830 F.2d 337, 349 (D.C.Cir.1987)). The focus is on the function of the Vaughn index, not its format, see Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F.3d 141,146 (D.C.Cir.2006), and documents need not be Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered, see Brown v. DOJ, 734 F.Supp.2d 99, 104 (D.D.C.2010). So long as the agency’s supporting declaration “provide[s] a relatively detailed justification, specifically identifying] the reasons why a particular exemption is relevant and correlating] those claims with the particular part of a withheld document to which they apply,” Mead Data Cent, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 251 (D.C.Cir.1977), a separate Vaughn index is not required. b. Exemption 7 i. Law Enforcement Records FOIA Exemption 7 protects from disclosure “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes,” but only to the extent that disclosure would cause an enumerated harm. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7); see FBI v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615, 622, 102 S.Ct. 2054, 72 L.Ed.2d 376 (1982). “To show that ... documents were compiled for law enforcement purposes, the [agency] need only establish a rational nexus between [an] investigation and one of the agency’s law enforcement duties and a connection between an individual or incident and a possible security risk or violation of federal law.” Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37, 40 (D.C.Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The EOUSA’s declarant asserts that its responsive records were “compiled for law enforcement purposes — namely, to facilitate the investigation and criminal prosecution of the [plaintiff].” Luczynski Decl. ¶ 25; Second Luczynski Decl. ¶ 27. The FBI’s declarant avers that “[documents responsive to [the] plaintiffs request relate to the FBI’s investigation of [the] plaintiff related to organized crime activity and murder, ... racketeering activity and murder/kidnapping (murder in aid of racketeering).” Hardy Decl. ¶ 53. The declar-ants adequately establish, and the plaintiff does not dispute, that the responsive records at issue in this case were compiled for law enforcement purposes within the scope of FOIA Exemption 7. ii. Exemption 7(C) FOIA Exemption 7(C) protects from disclosure information in law enforcement records that “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C). In determining whether this exemption applies to particular information, the Court must balance the interest in privacy of individuals mentioned in the records against the public interest in disclosure. See ACLU v. DOJ, 655 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C.Cir.2011). The privacy interest at stake belongs to the individual, not the government agency, see DOJ v. Reporters Comm, for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 763-65, 109 S.Ct. 1468, 103 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989), and “individuals have a strong interest in not being associated unwarrant-edly with alleged criminal activity,” Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 91-92 (D.C.Cir.1984). When balancing an individual’s privacy interest against the public interest in disclosure, “the only public interest relevant for purposes of Exemption 7(C) is one that focuses on ‘the citizens’ right to be informed about what their government is up to.’ ” Davis v. DOJ, 968 F.2d 1276, 1282 (D.C.Cir.1992) (quoting Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 773, 109 S.Ct. 1468). It is a FOIA requester’s obligation to articulate a public interest sufficient to outweigh an individual’s privacy interest, and the public interest must be significant. See Nat’l Archives and Records Admin, v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 172, 124 S.Ct. 1570, 158 L.Ed.2d 319 (2004). Law Enforcement Personnel Under FOIA Exemption 7(C), the EOU-SA withholds “the identities] of third party individuals, such as ... law enforcement personnel.” Second Luezynski Decl. ¶ 28. Its declarant explains that disclosure of such information “could subject [them] to an unwarranted invasion of their personal privacy.” Id. He further explains that “[r]elease of such personal identifiers could result in ... efforts to gain further access to [these third parties] or to personal information about them — or subject them to harassment, harm, or exposure to unwanted and/or derogatory publicity and inferences — all to their detriment.” Id. The EOUSA could not identify a “countervailing public interest in the release of this privacy-protected information, because its dissemination would not help explain government activities and operations nor did the public’s interest in the disclosure of this information outweigh the third-party individuals’ privacy rights in the information withheld.” Id. ¶ 29. Similarly, the FBI withholds the names of and identifying information about “FBI [Special Agents] ... responsible for conducting, supervising, and/or maintaining the investigative activities reported in the documents responsive to [the] plaintiffs request,” Hardy Decl. ¶ 58, as well as the same information concerning “state and/or local law enforcement employees,” id. ¶ 63. Its declarant explains that Special Agents “conduct official inquiries -into violations of various criminal statutes and national security cases.” Id. ¶ 59. In the performance of their duties, such as conducting searches and making arrests, the agents “come into contact with all strata of society” and create “serious disturbances to people and their lives.” Id. “It is possible,” the declarant states, that “an individual targeted by such law enforcement actions [might] carry a grudge which may last for years, and ... seek revenge on the agents involved in a particular investigation.” Id. Thus, any publicity resulting from the release of agents’ identities “in connection with a particular investigation could trigger hostility toward” those “agent[s].” Id. Moreover, publicity “regarding any particular investigation to which they have been assigned may seriously prejudice their effectiveness in conducting other investigations.” Id. ¶58. Accordingly, the declarant states, “disclosure of this information ... could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of their personal privacy.” Id. ¶ 59. The FBI applies a similar rationale for its decision to withhold the names of and identifying information about “state and/or local law enforcement employees,” including members of the New York Police Department and the Yonkers Police Department. Id. ¶ 63. The declarant explains that “[tjhese employees were acting in their official capacities and aided the FBI in its law enforcement efforts,” and that disclosure of their identities “could subject them ... to unofficial inquiries not anticipated in connection with their assistance to the FBI.” Id. The FBI identifies no public interest to be served if their identities were disclosed. See id. ¶¶ 59-60. The plaintiffs first challenge pertains to the privacy interests of these law enforcement officers. Citing Butler v. DOJ, No. 86-2255, 1994 WL 55621 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 1994), the plaintiff asserts that “FBI agents and other law enforcement personnel ‘may not have as great a claim to privacy as that afforded ordinarily to private citizens.’ ” PL’s Opp’n at 16 (quoting Butler, 1994 WL 55621, at *5) (quoting Besar v. DOJ, 636 F.2d 472, 487 (D.C.Cir. 1980)). Even if “Exemption 7(C) ... protects] the identity of FBI agents involved in investigations when their interest in not being harassed in the performance of their official duties outweighs the public interest in disclosure,” Pl.’s Opp’n at 16, the plaintiff suggests that protection is not warranted in this case, particularly where “the defendant has made bald claims, unsupported by any- factual evidence, that the release of these names will subject the FBI supervisory agent to harassment,” id. at 17 (quoting Butler, 1994 WL 55621, at *5) (internal quotation marks omitted). Admittedly, there is no “blanket exemption for the names of all FBI agents in all documents.” Baez v. DOJ, 647 F.2d 1328, 1339 (D.C'.Cir.l980) (footnote and citation omitted). However, even if these law enforcement personnel “may not have as great a claim to privacy as that afforded ordinarily to private citizens,” they do not “by virtue of [their] official status ... forgo altogether any privacy claim in matters related to official business.” Besar, 636 F.2d at 487. They retain “a legitimate interest in preserving the secrecy of matters that conceivably could subject them to annoyance or harassment in either their official or private lives.” Id.-, see also Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 746 F.3d 1082, 1092 (D.C.Cir.2014) (notwithstanding the “well-publicized announcement” by the former Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives confirming that “he had been, but was no longer, under investigation” by the FBI, he “retained a second, distinct privacy interest in the contents of the investigative files” sought by the requester). Accordingly, “[w]hile an individual’s official position may enter the 7(C) balance, it does not determine, of its own accord, that the privacy interest is outweighed.” Bast v. DOJ, 665 F.2d 1251, 1254-55 (D.C.Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). In the face of law enforcement officers’ legitimate privacy interests, it is the plaintiffs burden to demonstrate the existence of a public interest that outweighs those privacy interests. See Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 774-76, 109 S.Ct. 1468. The plaintiffs personal interest in “seeking documents that should have been produced and made available to him at his criminal trial,” Pl.’s Opp’n at 27, does not suffice. See, e.g., Oguaju v. United States, 288 F.3d 448, 450 (D.C.Cir.2002) (finding that a requester’s “personal stake in using the requested records to attack his convictions does not count in the calculation of the public interest”), vacated and remanded, 541 U.S. 970, J24 S.Ct. 1903, 158 L.Ed.2d 464 (2004), on remand, 378 F.3d 1115 (D.C.Cir.2004) (reaffirming prior decision), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 983, 125 S.Ct. 1849, 161 L.Ed.2d 739 (2005); Engelking v. DEA, 119 F.3d 980, 980-81 (D.C.Cir.1997) (per curiam) (“To the extent [the appellant] argues that he seeks exculpatory information, [his] personal need for information is immaterial to whether that information is protected from disclosure by one of the exemptions to the FOIA.”); Brown v. DOJ, 742 F.Supp.2d 126, 133 (D.D.C.2010) (“Assuming that plaintiff seeks documents responsive to his request in order to challenge his conviction and/or bring to light possible government misconduct, the Court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated that either of these reasons constitute^] a ‘significant’ public interest in documents concerning [a third party].”). Nor does the plaintiffs assertion of a generic public “interest in the administration of justice,” PL’s Opp’n at 26, suffice. See, e.g., McCutchen v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 30 F.3d 183, 188 (D.C.Cir. 1994) (“A mere desire to review how an agency is doing its job, coupled with allegations that it is not, does not create a public interest sufficient to override the privacy interests protected by Exemption 7(C).”). Absent production by the plaintiff of “evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that ... Government impropriety might have occurred,” Suss-man v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106, 1115 (D.C.Cir.2007) (quoting Favish, 541 U.S. at 174, 124 S.Ct. 1570), the plaintiff cannot demonstrate the existence of a public interest calling for the release of information pertaining to these third parties. Here, the Court concludes that the FBI Special Agents and other law enforcement personnel mentioned in the relevant records have legitimate privacy interests sufficient to outweigh any public interest in disclosure of their names or identifying information about them. See, e.g., Stone v. FBI, 727 F.Supp. 662, 664-65 (D.D.C.1990) (recognizing the privacy interests of the non-supervisory FBI Special Agents and Los Angeles Police Department officers named in the FBI’s file on the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy), aff'd per curiam, No. 90-5065, 1990 WL 134431, at *1 (D.C.Cir. Sept. 14, 1990). The EOUSA and the FBI therefore properly withhold this information under FOIA Exemption 7(C). See, e.g., Thompson v. DOJ, 851 F.Supp.2d 89, 99 (D.D.C.2012) (protecting the names of and identifying information about FBI Special Agents and support personnel, third parties with investigative interest to the FBI, third parties merely mentioned in documents related to the FBI’s criminal investigation of plaintiff, local law enforcement officers, and third parties interviewed by the FBI during the investigation); Lasko v. DOJ, 684 F.Supp.2d 120, 133 (D.D.C.2010) (protecting the identities of DEA Special Agents and state and local law enforcement officers), aff'd per curiam, No. 10-5068, 2010 WL 3521595, at *1 (D.C.Cir. Sept. 3, 2010); Richardson v. DOJ, 730 F.Supp.2d 225, 236 (D.D.C.2010) (“[T]he EOUSA properly [withheld] the identities of and personal information about all the third parties mentioned in the records responsive to plaintiffs FOIA request, whether or not these third parties are law enforcement officers or support personnel”). Other Third Parties The FBI withholds the names of and identifying information about “third parties who provided information to the FBI during the course of the investigations of [the] plaintiff.” Hardy Decl. ¶ 56. The declarant explains that the FBI relies on information obtained from individuals during interviews, and in the agency’s experience, such interviewees typically “fear that their identities] may be exposed and, consequently, that they could be harassed, intimidated, or threatened with legal consequences, economic reprisal, or possible physical harm.” Id. ¶ 57. The FBI addresses these fears through assurances “that their names and personally-identifying information will be held in the strictest confidence.” Id. In addition, the FBI withholds the names of and identifying information about “third parties ... [who] were of investigative interest to the FBI because of their criminal activities.” Id. ¶ 61. The declar-ant explains that “[disclosure of [their] identities could subject them to harassment, embarrassment and could cause undue public attention.” Id. Similarly, the agency withholds information about “third parties merely mentioned in documents related to the FBI’s investigation of [the] plaintiff.” Id. ¶ 62. Such information found its way into FBI records in this case “during the course of its investigation into [the] plaintiffs possible involvement in drugs, organized crime, and murder,” and its release, the declarant states, would reveal the individuals’ connection to a criminal investigation, carrying with it “an extremely negative connotation.” Id. These third parties thus would be subjected “to possible harassment or criticism” or “derogatory inferences and suspicion.” Id. The names of and information about FBI support personnel, id. ¶ 60, and “non-FBI federal government personnel,” id. ¶ 64, are also withheld under FOIA Exemption 7(C). FBI support personnel, the declarant explains, “were assigned to handle tasks related to the official investigation into [the] plaintiff,” and “were, and possibly are, in a position to access information regarding official law enforcement investigations,” and thus “could become targets of harassing inquiries for unauthorized access to investigations if their identities were released.” Id. ¶ 60. The same rationale applies to the FBI’s decision to withhold identifying information about non-FBI federal employees. Id. ¶ 64. In none of these circumstances does the FBI find a public interest sufficient to outweigh the privacy interests of these third parties. Id. ¶¶ 57, 60-62, 65. The EOUSA withholds “the identities] of th