Donato v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys
308 F. Supp. 3d 294
| D.C. Cir. | 2018Background
- Pro se inmate Anthony Donato submitted FOIA requests (2011–2014) to EOUSA, the FBI, and BOP seeking records about an alleged plot by inmate Dominick Cicale to frame others for murder and seeking BOP placement worksheets used for Donato's transfers.
- EOUSA located potentially voluminous materials in EDNY, assessed fees for searching beyond the two free hours, denied Donato's public-interest fee waiver, and was instructed on appeal to provide two hours of search time and up to 100 pages of duplication free.
- The FBI issued a Glomar response (refused to confirm or deny existence of records) citing privacy interests of third parties and FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C); OIP upheld that response on appeal.
- BOP located responsive pages for the murder-plot request but withheld records in full under multiple exemptions; for the placement request BOP initially found nothing, later produced two unrelated pages; OIP partially remanded and ultimately affirmed.
- This suit challenged (1) EOUSA’s denial of a fee waiver and alleged failure to provide the two free hours/100 free pages, (2) FBI’s Glomar response, and (3) adequacy of BOP searches and its exemption-based withholdings. Defendants moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EOUSA improperly denied a public-interest fee waiver | Donato asserted disclosure serves public interest and he can disseminate records | EOUSA argued Donato failed to show ability to disseminate to a broad audience | Denial upheld: Donato failed to show ability to disseminate; fee waiver properly denied |
| Whether EOUSA provided the mandatory two free search hours and 100 free pages after remand | Donato says he received no responsive materials; EOUSA claims it complied | EOUSA asserts it performed search and provided material; record ambiguous (possible misdirected search) | Court found record unclear; summary judgment denied as to EOUSA; EOUSA must clarify/produce 100 pages if not already provided |
| Whether FBI properly issued a Glomar response to murder-plot records request | Donato argued public interest in exposing informant/perjury and government misconduct outweighs privacy | FBI argued confirming existence would invade third-party privacy; no public-domain acknowledgement that FBI investigated; Exemption 7(C) applies | Glomar response upheld; FBI entitled to summary judgment because privacy interests outweigh public interest and no evidence FBI had acknowledged an investigation |
| Whether BOP conducted adequate searches and properly invoked FOIA exemptions for withheld pages | Donato contends searches were inadequate and withholdings improper | BOP submitted declarations describing locate/withhold but failed to describe search methods, terms, or document contexts | Court denied summary judgment for BOP; declarations inadequate to establish reasonable search or justify exemptions; remand for more detailed declarations |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Dep't of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164 (statutory FOIA purpose: pierce administrative secrecy)
- Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir.) (Glomar response standards)
- ACLU v. CIA, 710 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir.) (review of Glomar responses and prior disclosure/public-domain doctrine)
- Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885 (D.C. Cir.) (balancing privacy vs. public interest under Exemption 7(C))
- Favish v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 541 U.S. 157 (public interest claims of government misconduct require evidentiary showing)
- Roth v. DOJ, 642 F.3d 1161 (D.C. Cir.) (scope of Exemption 7(C) and relation to Exemption 6)
- Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir.) (requirements for agency affidavits showing adequacy of search)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rossotti, 326 F.3d 1309 (D.C. Cir.) (factors showing ability to disseminate for fee-waiver purposes)