Darryl Lamont DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant
970 F. Supp. 2d 10
D.D.C.2013Background
- Davis, a defendant in criminal case No. 3:07-cr-66 (E.D. Tenn.), submitted a FOIA request to EOUSA for all DNA evidence and related records from files of AUSA Tracy L. Stone.
- EOUSA referred the request to USAO for the Eastern District of Tennessee; EOUSA released three pages (partially redacted) and withheld one page of grand jury material; EOUSA also referred 103 pages to the FBI, which released them in redacted form.
- Davis challenged EOUSA’s adequacy of search and withholding under FOIA, seeking disclosure of subpoenas and other DNA-related materials he believed existed.
- EOUSA explained the search: review of case files, emails to AUSAs, and a LIONS database query using Davis’s name; it asserted all responsive EOUSA-held records were located and produced or properly withheld.
- EOUSA invoked Exemption 3 (grand jury materials under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6) and Exemptions 6 and 7(C) (privacy interests in law‑enforcement records) for withheld material; FBI relied on Exemptions 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E) for its redactions.
- The Court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding the search adequate, the claimed exemptions applicable, and that all reasonably segregable, nonexempt information was released.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of search | Davis contended EOUSA failed to produce requested DNA records and did not search all locations (e.g., subpoena referenced in FBI document) | EOUSA described searches of USAO case files, queries to AUSAs, and LIONS database; asserted all responsive EOUSA records were located | Search was reasonably calculated and adequate; summary judgment for EOUSA granted |
| Obligation to follow leads found in referred records | Davis argued EOUSA/FBI should retrieve documents referenced in released records (e.g., subpoena) | Agencies are not required to search beyond the four corners of the FOIA request or to retrieve records they no longer possess; FBI only had duty to process referrals | Court held agencies need not chase leads in documents or recover records not in their custody |
| Withholding of grand jury materials | Davis claimed some subpoena/grand jury materials should have been disclosed (and may have been discoverable in criminal case) | EOUSA invoked Exemption 3 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 6 to withhold grand jury materials to prevent revealing scope/direction of the investigation | Exemption 3 withholding of grand jury materials was appropriate; criminal discovery standards do not override FOIA exemptions |
| Withholding third-party personal information | Davis challenged reliance on privacy exemptions generally | EOUSA invoked Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to protect identities of witnesses/third parties; no evidence Davis presented of agency illegality or other basis to overcome privacy interests | Withholding under Exemption 7(C) (and 6 in conjunction) was proper; no showing to overcome privacy protections |
Key Cases Cited
- Safecard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (agency affidavits may support summary judgment in FOIA if detailed and nonconclusory)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (requirements for declarations justifying FOIA withholdings)
- Kowalczyk v. Department of Justice, 73 F.3d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (agency not required to look beyond the four corners of a FOIA request for leads)
- Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (1980) (FOIA applies only to records the agency has created and retained)
- Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (categorical protection for identities of subjects, witnesses, or informants in law‑enforcement files)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of the Army, 79 F.3d 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (agency must disclose all reasonably segregable nonexempt portions)
- Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (adequacy of FOIA search is judged by methods used, not results)
- Boyd v. Criminal Div. of DOJ, 475 F.3d 381 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (failure to find a particular document does not by itself show an inadequate search)
- Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. DOJ, 142 F.3d 496 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (treatment of grand jury materials under Rule 6 and FOIA)