Coleman v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 134 F. Supp. 3d 294

Background

John J. Coleman, president of Drug Watch International and former high‑level DEA official, submitted a FOIA request (Oct. 25, 2012) seeking documents about rescheduling carisoprodol and hydrocodone and requested a public‑interest fee waiver.
DEA initially denied the fee waiver as commercial use, delayed processing, and after administrative appeals and litigation produced ~1,985 pages (Oct–Nov 2014) without charging fees; some third‑party redactions under Exemption (b)(6) were applied.
DEA searched two components it deemed most likely to have responsive records: the Office of Diversion Control (specifically the Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, ODE) and the Office of Chief Counsel (OCC); searchers used electronic searches (key terms including the drug names) and hard‑copy reviews.
Coleman identified two DEA letters (1996 and 2004) that stated the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Office of Diversion Control would act as liaison with HHS, arguing those letters were a clear lead indicating that office likely held responsive records.
Coleman also challenged (1) the scope of DEA’s search (limited to two offices), (2) the absence of any produced emails, and (3) the sufficiency of DEA’s affidavits describing the search; he sought a declaratory ruling that DEA’s denial of a fee waiver was unlawful.
The court ordered a supplemental search of the Deputy Assistant Administrator’s office, found the DEA’s other search efforts reasonable, and held Coleman lacked standing for declaratory relief about the fee waiver denial because he failed to show a likely future injury.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of search scope	DEA limited search to two offices; letters show Deputy Assistant Administrator’s office likely has responsive records	DEA reasonably targeted ODE and OCC based on expertise and custodians identified	DEA’s failure to search Deputy Assistant Administrator’s office made search inadequate; must search that office; other office exclusions reasonable
Absence of emails	No produced emails suggests DEA did not search email systems adequately	OCC attorney and ODE chief searched email, personal drives, and shared drives with relevant terms	Mere absence of emails does not defeat adequacy where search methods were reasonable and documented
Sufficiency of affidavits	Declarations lacked detail about search methods, files, and physical filing systems	Affidavits identified offices searched, custodians, and search terms and methods	Affidavits were sufficiently detailed except for omission of the Deputy Assistant Administrator’s office search
Standing for declaratory relief on fee waiver	Past denial and alleged agency practice justify declaratory relief	Plaintiff must show likelihood of future injury; past delay alone insufficient	Coleman lacks standing: no pending request or credible likelihood of future FOIA harm; declaratory relief denied

Key Cases Cited

Brayton v. Office of the U.S. Trade Rep., 641 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (summary judgment is typical FOIA vehicle)
Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (agency must show search reasonably calculated to uncover responsive records)
Weisberg v. DOJ, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (standard for adequate FOIA search)
Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (agency affidavit must be reasonably detailed about search)
Ground Saucer Watch, Inc. v. CIA, 692 F.2d 770 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (agency affidavits enjoy presumption of good faith)
Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (affidavits overcomeable by contrary record evidence or bad faith)
Campbell v. DOJ, 164 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (agency must follow clear leads revealed by produced records)
Valencia‑Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (agency must search known likely locations unless undue burden)
Iturralde v. Comptroller of the Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (adequacy judged by search methods, not fruits)
SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (presumption of good faith for agency declarations)
Steinberg v. DOJ, 23 F.3d 548 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (search adequacy principles)
Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 641 F.3d 504 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (absence of expected emails alone does not show inadequacy)
Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (affidavits need reasonable specificity, not epic detail)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, imminent injury and traceability)
O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974) (past injury alone does not support prospective injunctive relief)
Payne Enters., Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (plaintiff may challenge agency practice where future injury is likely)