Rosters or Report of Incidents, that disclosure need not control the result here. In this case the DOJ has sufficiently demonstrated that the information withheld from the Daily Assignment Ros ters could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of one or many individuals and thus falls within Exemption 7(F). As the BOP’s declarations explain, the Daily Assignment Rosters, “reveal the institution’s staffing levels, including how many correctional officers are present on each shift and where those officers are posted throughout the institution. This information could assist individuals in planning incidents, including assaults, homicides, and escape attempts.” 3d Christenson Decl. ¶42; cf. Anderson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 806 F.Supp.2d 121, 128 (D.D.C. 2011) (<HOLDING>) identified in the investigation and resulting
holding that rule was not violated where officer stated he made a report but was unable to find it because there was no report to tender to counsel holding that a title vii retaliation claim was not properly before the court because although the plaintiff had not been fired when he filed his complaint the plaintiff never amended his complaint to include a claim of retaliation based on his termination holding an employers response to a complaint of sexual harassment was reasonable when the employer investigated the incident but the alleged harasser and supervising employee denied that the incident occurred holding that exemption 7f was properly invoked to withhold a bops prison incident report because it would likely result in harassment andor retaliation to possibly include physical assaults directed towards individuals holding that it was error for the trial court to refuse to permit plaintiff to amend his complaint to include a new affidavit and report complying with section 2622 where there was no indication that the plaintiffs failure to file the report earlier in the litigation was in bad faith