Marino v. Department of Justice
993 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2013Background
- Vincent M. Marino, a federal prisoner convicted of racketeering and related offenses, sued multiple DOJ components under FOIA, the Privacy Act, and the Sunshine Act seeking records he believed would show prosecutorial/agency misconduct and support his innocence.
- Marino submitted multiple overlapping FOIA/Privacy Act requests (grouped into several FOIA numbers) seeking: sealed documents from United States v. Salemme, FBI tapes regarding the Salemme attempted murder, verdict sheets from Marino’s criminal case, and records referring to Marino or his aliases.
- DOJ components (CRIM, FBI, EOUSA, USAO-MA, OIP, OAG, OEO, USAO-DC) responded variably: CRIM later found and partially released some pages; FBI declined searches saying it did not maintain sealed court records; EOUSA routed searches to USAO‑MA which identified a large volume of potentially responsive material and estimated a $8,960 search cost, asked Marino for payment, and administratively closed the requests when he did not pay.
- Several DOJ components (OIP, OAG, OEO) either did not conduct searches or the record contains no evidence they did; CRIM and FBI construed Marino’s requests narrowly and did not explain ignoring parts of the requests; USAO‑MA did not complete review because of the disputed search-fee process.
- Marino sued; defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment. The Court sua sponte dismissed the Sunshine Act claim as legally inapplicable, but declined to grant dismissal/summary judgment on FOIA and Privacy Act claims because the agencies did not show adequate, reasonable searches.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Sunshine Act | Marino sought meeting/records disclosure under Sunshine Act | DOJ argued (implicitly) claim not viable | Court dismissed Sunshine Act claim with prejudice (Act inapplicable to DOJ headed by single AG) |
| Adequacy of agency FOIA searches | Marino contends agencies failed to search for all requested records (Salemme sealed docs, tapes, his records) | Defendants assert searches were adequate or requests unexhausted; some components claim they never received requests | Court held the record does not show agencies conducted adequate, reasonable searches; denied motion without prejudice on FOIA claims |
| Fee/Exhaustion dispute (EOUSA / USAO‑MA) | Marino revised request and capped search fee at $1,000; contends EOUSA ignored this and effectively blocked search | EOUSA/USAO‑MA required $8,960 advance or fee waiver; argued Marino failed to exhaust administrative remedies / obtain waiver | Court found EOUSA/USAO‑MA did not show they completed an adequate search and ignored Marino’s $1,000 cap; denied summary judgment as to these defendants |
| Privacy Act claims | Marino seeks access/amendment for records concerning him | Defendants conflated Privacy Act with FOIA and did not brief Privacy Act defenses | Court denied defendants’ motion as to Privacy Act claims without prejudice for lack of adequate briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must include factual allegations supporting legal claims)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (search must be reasonably calculated to uncover requested documents)
- Founding Church of Scientology v. NSA, 610 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (substantial doubt about search adequacy precludes summary judgment)
- Oglesby v. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (agencies must reasonably search systems likely to contain responsive records)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (agency affidavits can establish search adequacy if detailed and credible)
- Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (agency must account for each requested document as produced, nonexistent, or exempt)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standards)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and burden of showing no genuine dispute)
- Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (FOIA requires disclosure subject to enumerated exemptions)