Dorsey v. Drug Enforcement Administration
85 F. Supp. 3d 211
D.D.C.2015Background
- Dorsey filed a FOIA lawsuit against the DEA in the District of Columbia to obtain records; the agency’s responses involved withholding under several exemptions.
- The operative FOIA request sought records related to DEA informants in 2003–2004, including hand notes, promises, agreements, video surveillance, and logs from the Orlando, Florida field office.
- The court previously granted in part and denied in part the agency’s prior motion for summary judgment; remaining issues include Exemption 7(D) handling, referrals to other DOJ components, segregability, and fees.
- The DEA referred related records to the FBI, OIP, and the Criminal Division; the FBI released records in full, while the Criminal Division withheld under Exemptions 3, 5, 6, and 7(C).
- The court granted summary judgment for the agency on all issues and denied plaintiff’s fee request under FOIA, concluding he did not substantially prevail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exemption 3 applicability to Title III memoranda | Memoranda should be disclosed; insufficient detail supports withholding | Memoranda qualify under 18 U.S.C. 2518(8)(b) and are exempt | Exemption 3 proper; memoranda withheld. |
| Exemption 5 attorney work product for the memoranda | Work product claim not adequately supported | Memoranda prepared by attorney in anticipation of litigation; protected | Exemption 5 applies; work product properly withheld. |
| Exemptions 7(C)/7(D) for third-party information and confidential sources | Disputed breadth of withholding; seeks more information | Third-party privacy and confidential-source protections apply | Information properly withheld under Exemption 7(C) and the source confidentiality under Exemption 7(D) where applicable. |
| Segregability and release of non-exempt material; Fees | Non-exempt portions should be released; requests fees on catalyst theory | No non-exempt material remaining; plaintiff did not substantially prevail | All reasonably segregable material released; fees denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lam Lek Chong v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Admin., 929 F.2d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (Title III disclosures restricted to intercepted communications)
- Miller v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 872 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D.D.C. 2012) (Discussion of withholding of Title III related information)
- New York Times Co. v. NASA, 920 F.2d 1002 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (En banc; privacy and law-enforcement records considerations)
- Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Deference to agency affidavits in FOIA disputes; detailed declarations required)
- Roth v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 642 F.3d 1161 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Implied confidentiality factors for Exemption 7(D))
- Landano v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 508 U.S. 165 (1993) (Confidential source protection; case-by-case inquiry)