Donato v. Executive Office United States Attorneys
Civil Action No. 2016-0632
| D.D.C. | Nov 5, 2021Background
- Pro se plaintiff Anthony Donato, an inmate, sought DOJ records under FOIA about an alleged plot by inmate Dominick Cicale to frame a mob member and a BOP officer.
- Donato submitted multiple FOIA requests to DOJ components; the FBI issued a Glomar response under Exemption 7(C), refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records unless Donato provided waivers, proof of death, or showed overriding public interest.
- Donato argued the information was in the public domain (and later submitted newly unsealed BOP documents) and that public interest outweighed privacy; he sued when the FBI maintained its Glomar response.
- The court previously granted summary judgment to the FBI, finding Donato had not met the exacting public-disclosure standard to defeat a Glomar response.
- Donato moved for reconsideration under Rule 54(b), relying on (1) previously available and newly unsealed documents and (2) a claim that the court undervalued the public interest; the court considered only the new unsealed materials.
- The court denied reconsideration: the new BOP documents showed BOP awareness/investigation but did not establish that the FBI had publicly acknowledged or conducted the investigation, and Donato failed to show evidence of government impropriety sufficient to overcome the privacy interests protected by Exemption 7(C).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether public disclosures defeat the FBI’s Glomar response | Donato: Other DOJ/BOP documents (including newly unsealed items) publicly acknowledge the plot so FBI cannot refuse to confirm existence of records | FBI: Public-disclosure doctrine requires an official prior disclosure that the FBI itself investigated; BOP documents do not show FBI involvement | Denied — BOP/unsealed docs show BOP awareness but do not establish FBI acknowledgement or records; Glomar stands |
| Whether newly unsealed evidence warrants reconsideration under Rule 54(b) | Donato: New unsealed materials alter the court’s awareness and justify revising the interlocutory ruling | FBI: The new materials do not change the legal conclusion and plaintiff bears burden to show reconsideration is warranted | Denied — court limited review to new evidence and found it insufficient to change the prior ruling |
| Whether asserted public interest overcomes third-party privacy under FOIA Exemption 7(C) | Donato: Public has strong interest in exposing how FBI/DOJ handled the alleged plot and possible misconduct | FBI: Third parties have substantial privacy interests; without evidence suggesting government impropriety public interest does not outweigh privacy | Denied — plaintiff offered no evidence to warrant belief of government impropriety; privacy interests prevail |
| Whether Rule 54(b) relief is appropriate for alleged errors of apprehension | Donato: Court overlooked key evidence and misinterpreted arguments | FBI: Movant must show good reasons; no cognizable error or new facts altering the outcome | Denied — movant failed to meet Rule 54(b) standard; no justice-requiring error found |
Key Cases Cited
- Donato v. Exec. Off. for United States Att'ys, 308 F. Supp. 3d 294 (D.D.C. 2018) (prior opinion upholding FBI Glomar response)
- Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (explains Glomar responses and context for nondisclosure)
- ACLU v. CIA, 710 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (public-disclosure doctrine can defeat Glomar if existence of records already disclosed)
- Phillippi v. CIA, 546 F.2d 1009 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (original Glomar doctrine recognition)
- Afshar v. Dep't of State, 702 F.2d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (public-domain duplication standard)
- Public Citizen v. Dep't of State, 11 F.3d 198 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (limits on what public disclosures suffice to defeat exemptions)
- Marino v. DEA, 685 F.3d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (when disclosures by one agency component can bind another)
- Nat'l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (U.S. 2004) (public-interest showing requires evidence warranting belief of government impropriety)
- Davis v. DOJ, 968 F.2d 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (balancing public interest against privacy under Exemption 7(C))