83 F. Supp. 3d 347
D.D.C.2015Background
- Dorsey filed a FOIA request with EOUSA in June 2011 seeking surveillance video, logs, warrants, agreements, and other records related to an investigation.
- EOUSA located responsive records and referred records originating at DOJ components (DEA and FBI) back to those agencies for processing.
- DEA received 349 pages, found some nonresponsive/duplicate/blank pages, released 8 pages in full, 55 in part, and withheld 95 pages relying on Exemptions 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F).
- FBI received 37 pages, treated two as duplicates, released 3 pages in full, 16 in part, and withheld 16 pages in full relying on Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
- Agencies submitted detailed declarations and a Vaughn index describing withheld material, asserted law-enforcement compilation and cognizable harms, and claimed all reasonably segregable nonexempt information was released.
- Court previously found EOUSA’s search and prior withholdings appropriate; here it reviewed the referrals and declarations and granted the renewed motion for summary judgment, denying fees to plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether referred records were compiled for law enforcement | Dorsey contests overbroad withholding; seeks records | Agencies show records were created in criminal investigations (DEA, FBI) | Court: Records have a rational nexus to law enforcement; Exemption 7 applies |
| Whether Exemption 7(C)/6 apply to identifying info | Dorsey argues agencies withheld entire pages instead of just identifiers | FBI/DEA withheld names/IDs to protect privacy and safety of officers/third parties | Court: Withholdings under Exemption 7(C) are proper; treated as conceded for Exemption 6 |
| Whether Exemption 7(D) covers informant identities | Dorsey says DEA failed to prove express assurances of confidentiality | DEA showed coded informant program with express assurances and implied confidentiality for others | Court: DEA properly withheld identities under Exemption 7(D) (express and implied confidentiality) |
| Whether Exemption 7(E) covers internal codes/numbers (G-DEP, NADDIS) | Dorsey contends DEA did not explain procedures or risk of circumvention | DEA explained codes reveal investigative priorities/methods and could enable evasion or endanger agents | Court: DEA properly withheld G-DEP and NADDIS under Exemption 7(E) |
| Whether agencies satisfied segregability obligations | Dorsey argues agencies failed to segregate nonexempt material | Declarations state line-by-line review, Vaughn index, and reasons why full-page withholding was necessary | Court: Agencies demonstrated that all reasonably segregable nonexempt information was released |
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to fees/costs | Dorsey claims suit prompted disclosures and requests $350 plus costs | Agencies acted lawfully; plaintiff is pro se and not eligible for attorney’s fees; no public benefit shown | Court: Denied fees and costs; plaintiff not entitled to award |
Key Cases Cited
- Students Against Genocide v. Dep’t of State, 257 F.3d 828 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (agency entitled to summary judgment if it produces requested documents or shows they are wholly exempt)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (agency affidavits may suffice for summary judgment if detailed and uncontradicted)
- FBI v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615 (1982) (Exemption 7 protects records compiled for law enforcement to the extent disclosure would cause enumerated harms)
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165 (1993) (confidentiality under Exemption 7(D) requires express or implied assurance determined case-by-case)
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (privacy interests are individual, not governmental)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (categorical protection for names/addresses in Exemption 7(C) absent compelling public interest)
- Roth v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 642 F.3d 1161 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (discussion of interplay among Exemptions 6, 7(C), and factors for implied confidentiality)
- Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (rational nexus test for law enforcement compilation under Exemption 7)
- Williams v. FBI, 69 F.3d 1155 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (source confidential if express assurance or circumstances imply confidentiality)