65 F. Supp. 3d 157
D.D.C.2014Background
- Plaintiff Edgar Mosquera Gamboa seeks records under FOIA from EOUSA, FBI, and DEA related to his criminal case and asset seizures in Houston (1993).
- Plaintiff narrowed requests to lab reports F-3806 and F-3808, surveillance log, forfeiture notices, and final dispositions of seized funds.
- EOUSA conducted a search using the LIONS system; initial search found no responsive records and later searches yielded no eligible documents related to the seized assets.
- FBI conducted CRS/ACS searches and located multiple files; it released some records and withheld others under FOIA exemptions, with referrals to CBP for some records.
- DEA referred two pages to the FBI and did not describe a search, raising questions about the adequacy of its response.
- Court grants summary judgment for EOUSA and FBI on adequacy and most exemptions, but denies in part for DEA and certain exemptions related to confidentiality and 7(F).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was EOUSA's search reasonably calculated to locate responsive records? | Gamboa argues EOUSA failed to locate seized-assets records. | Stennett Decl. contends a thorough LIONS-based search located all responsive files. | EOUSA search deemed adequate. |
| Was FBI's search reasonably calculated to locate responsive records? | Gamboa contends FBI failed to locate or disclose all assets-related records. | Hardy Decl. describes CRS/ACS search and multiple locations; search deemed adequate. | FBI search deemed adequate. |
| Are the records withheld under FOIA Exemptions 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F) properly withheld? | Gamboa disputes withholding under exemptions, including confidentiality concerns. | FBI/CBP/OCDETF justify withholding under 7(C), 7(E); 7(D) and 7(F) arguments are offered but scrutinized. | Exemptions 7(C), 7(E) upheld; 7(D) and 7(F) reconsidered where lacking adequate justification. |
| Did the FBI properly withhold 7(D) information given confidentiality and linkage to plaintiff? | Confidential-source protection lacks explicit linkage to plaintiff's case. | Withdrawal relies on implied confidentiality and security concerns. | 7(D) withholding not adequately demonstrated; remanded for further consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (adequacy of FOIA search focus on reasonableness of search, not results)
- Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (scope of search adequacy and documentation standards)
- Toensing v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 890 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2012) (need for detailed, nonconclusory declarations in FOIA review)
- Baker & Hostetler LLP v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 473 F.3d 312 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (detailed affidavit required to support nondisclosure)
- Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (foundational FOIA 7(D) confidentiality considerations)
- Landano, 508 U.S. 165 (S. Ct. 1993) (confidentiality standards for sources under 7(D))
- Concepción v. FBI, 606 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2009) (specs on agency search and exemption analysis)
- Roth v. DOJ, 642 F.3d 1161 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (7(C) vs 7(F) interplay and privacy/public interest)
- Am. Immigration Council v. DHS, 950 F. Supp. 2d 221 (D.D.C. 2013) (conceded exemptions when no opposition to redactions)