Adionser v. Department of Justice
33 F. Supp. 3d 23
D.D.C.2014Background
- FOIA suit by Dickinson Adionser against the DEA over withheld records; prior grant of summary judgment for DEA and appellate affirmance with remand for new issues; remand directed to address Exemption 7(A) reconsideration and Exemption 7(E) applicability to G-DEP codes;DEA submitted Fourth Myrick Declaration and Vaughn Index detailing withholding basis; court finds G-DEP codes were the sole basis for Exemption 7(E) and plaintiff disclaims interest in them; court reviews Exemptions 7(C), 7(D), 7(F) and Privacy Act j(2) as to remaining records; court grants summary judgment to DEA on all challenged exemptions; court concludes records are properly processed with adequate segregation and privacy protections; conclusive ruling that IRFS records were properly exempt under Privacy Act j(2) and FOIA exemptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether G-DEP codes fall under Exemption 7(E). | Adionser is not interested in G-DEP codes. | G-DEP codes reveal techniques and could enable evasion; warranted under Exemption 7(E). | DEA properly withheld under Exemption 7(E). |
| Whether information withheld under Exemptions 7(C), 7(D), 7(F) and Privacy Act j(2) is permissible. | Arguments mirror those raised initially; exemptions should not apply. | Declarations and Vaughn Index show proper application of exemptions. | Exemptions 7(C), 7(D), 7(F) and j(2) apply; records may be withheld. |
| Whether the records are segregable; whether non-exempt portions must be disclosed. | Not explicitly stated; challenge to completeness of redactions. | Most records are entirely or almost entirely exempt; segregability met. | FOIA segregability requirement satisfied; redactions appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beck v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 997 F.2d 1489 (D.C.Cir. 1993) (privacy/public interest balancing under Exemption 7(C))
- National Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (Supreme Court 2004) (public interest in disclosure requires strong showing of public benefit)
- Lasko v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 684 F. Supp. 2d 120 (D.D.C. 2010) (courts recognize risk of violence in drug investigations supports confidentiality)
- Landano v. United States, 508 U.S. 165 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (confidential-source privilege in Exemption 7(D))
- Mays v. DEA, 234 F.3d 1324 (D.C.Cir. 2000) (confidential informants’ safety justifies confidentiality under Exemption 7(D))
- Diaz v. DEA, 555 F. Supp. 2d 124 (D.D.C. 2008) (Exemption 7(F) protects identities of law enforcement personnel and informants)
- Davis v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 968 F.2d 1276 (D.C.Cir. 1992) (privacy protections under Exemption 7 and related exemptions)
- Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755 (D.C.Cir. 1990) (segregability and disclosure standards under FOIA)
- Johnson v. Exec. Office for U.S. Att’ys, 310 F.3d 771 (D.C.Cir. 2002) (segregability and Vaughn-style disclosure requirements)
- Graff v. FBI, 822 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2011) (public interest required to overcome privacy concerns under 7(C))
- Durham v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 829 F. Supp. 428 (D.D.C. 1993) (confidential sources and safety considerations under Exemption 7(F))