Marino v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 401 U.S. App. D.C. 452

Marino is incarcerated for a 1997 drug conspiracy and filed a 2004 FOIA request seeking NADDIS No. 3049901 documents linked to two trials.
Marino alleges NADDIS 3049901 belongs to Lopez, a co-conspirator who testified against him, implying misconduct.
DEA issued a Glomar response, withholding existence of records pursuant to FOIA exemption 7(C) to protect privacy.
After an unsuccessful administrative appeal, the district court granted summary judgment for the DEA and Marino’s counsel failed to respond.
Marino sought reconsideration and, later, relief under Rule 60(b)(6); the district court denied both motions as futile.
On appeal, the D.C. Circuit reverses and remands to reconsider the Rule 60(b)(6) motion in light of a meritorious defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the public domain exception create a meritorious defense to a Glomar denial?	Marino argues public disclosure links Lopez to NADDIS 3049901, undermining Glomar.	DEA maintains Glomar valid notwithstanding public disclosure, so existence cannot be admitted.	Yes; Marino has a meritorious defense requiring remand.
Should Rule 60(b)(6) relief be reconsidered given a meritorious defense?	Marino seeks relief to reopen under substantial meritorious defense.	District court discretion to deny relief; futility if no defense.	Remand for reconsideration on the proper standard.

Wolf v. Central Intelligence Agency, 473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Glomar context; disclosure by others can affect the public domain analysis)
Davis v. Dep't of Justice, 460 F.3d 92 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (prosecutor release can trigger public domain effects within DOJ)
Murray v. District of Columbia, 52 F.3d 353 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (meritorious defense standard for Rule 60(b)(6) relief)
Keegel v. Key West & Caribbean Trading Co., 627 F.2d 372 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (merits-based test for meritorious defenses under Rule 60(b)(6))