388 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiff Juan Luciano Machado Amadis (Dominican citizen) was denied U.S. visas in 1989, 1990, and 2012 based on alleged arrest/possession of cocaine; he disputes the factual basis and sought agency records via FOIA from State, FBI, and DEA.
- Initial FOIA requests to State, FBI, and DEA produced: State located 53 records (some released, some withheld), DEA reported no responsive investigative files, and FBI reported no main-file records and issued a Glomar (neither confirm nor deny) regarding watchlist status.
- Dissatisfied, Machado Amadis filed follow-up FOIA requests: (Second) requests seeking records memorializing processing of the first requests (to DEA, FBI, State); (OIP) request to DOJ OIP for appeal-processing materials; and (Third) broad requests to DEA and FBI for all records about him—these later six requests form the basis of the suit.
- DOJ/State moved for summary judgment; Machado Amadis cross-moved for partial summary judgment. The Court granted government summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion.
- Key legal determinations: plaintiff conceded Declaratory Judgment Act and All Writs Act claims; failed to exhaust administrative remedies for Third DEA and Third FBI Requests; agency searches (DEA, State, FBI FDPS) were adequate; FBI permissibly withheld search slips/processing notes under Exemption 7(E); OIP permissibly withheld deliberative attorney notes under Exemption 5 and withheld one FBI employee contact under Exemption 6.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Declaratory Judgment Act and All Writs Act claims survive | Machado Amadis did not respond to government arguments | Those claims are redundant to FOIA and fail if FOIA claims fail | Court treated plaintiff as conceding and dismissed these claims |
| Whether Machado exhausted administrative remedies for Third DEA and Third FBI Requests | Agency offers to perform additional searches meant determinations were not final; constructive exhaustion applies | Agencies issued timely adverse determinations (no records) and provided appeal rights; plaintiff did not appeal | Court held plaintiff failed to exhaust; claims dismissed for lack of administrative exhaustion |
| Adequacy of DEA search for Second DEA Request (processing records) | DEA should have searched separate email accounts and other systems | DEA reasonably determined responsive materials would be in its FOIA/PA case system (JUSTICE-004) and searched it; later supplemental search produced additional pages | Court held DEA search adequate under FOIA (reasonable, not perfect) |
| Withholding of FBI search slips/FDPS notes in Second FBI Request | Plaintiff argued possible non-search-related processing materials might exist and should be disclosed | FBI categorically withheld processing/search materials because disclosure would reveal whether files exist and risk circumvention; Exemption 7(E) applies; OIP affirmed | Court held categorical withholding of search slips/case notes under Exemption 7(E) proper |
| OIP's responsiveness determination re: OIP Request (appeal-processing materials) | Plaintiff argued OIP should have produced DEA/FBI records found in appeal files | OIP limited request to records memorializing OIP’s own processing; DEA/FBI processing records in appeal files do not memorialize OIP’s work | Court held OIP correctly construed request and properly withheld nonresponsive pages |
| Withholding of OIP Blitz Forms under Exemptions 5 and 6 | Plaintiff argued redactions were improper and no harm shown | OIP withheld reviewer contact under Exemption 6 (conceded); withheld ‘‘Discussion/Search Notes/Recommendation’’ as predecisional, deliberative attorney work product under Exemption 5 | Court held redactions proper: Exemption 6 conceded; deliberative process privilege applies to Blitz Forms |
| Adequacy of State Department search for Second State Request | Plaintiff argued other components (Visa Office/Embassy) had been tasked and that search terms were insufficient | State searched its FOIA case management system and email/mailbox using the unique FOIA case number; its declaration that other components were not tasked is entitled to presumption of good faith | Court held State’s search adequate and reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir.) (FOIA search and exhaustion standards)
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. FEC, 711 F.3d 180 (D.C. Cir.) (what constitutes an adverse FOIA determination triggering appeal)
- Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir.) (search must be reasonably calculated to locate responsive records)
- Shapiro v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 239 F. Supp. 3d 100 (D.D.C.) (FBI may withhold search slips/processing materials under Exemption 7(E))
- Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir.) (Exemption 7(E) requires showing release could risk circumvention of law)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court) (summary judgment standard)