North v. United States Department of Justice
810 F. Supp. 2d 205
D.D.C.2011Background
- North, pro se, sues multiple DOJ components under FOIA seeking records about grand jury proceedings and a witness who testified against him.
- North was convicted in 2000 for drug- and gun-related offenses; witness Gianpaolo Starita testified for the government and cooperated for leniency.
- DEA responded to North's 2007 FOIA request by neither confirming nor denying existence of records and invoking privacy exemptions (FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7).
- The court previously granted summary judgment for defendants on most claims and later granted summary judgment to EOUSA on Count III; North moved to reconsider Count I.
- Upon reconsideration, the court held North met his initial burden to show some information may be public and vacated the prior summary judgment against DEA, requiring a proper search.
- The court concluded Starita’s status as an informant and testimonies suggest potential public disclosure, undermining a blanket Glomar defense for all requested records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether North met the public-domain burden | North showed excerpts indicating public disclosure of related information. | DEA contends excerpts are insufficient to prove public-domain status of requested records. | Yes; North satisfied initial burden regarding information in trial excerpts. |
| Whether DEA conducted a proper search for responsive records | DEA failed to show it performed an adequate search and review for identical public-domain information. | DEA maintained a Glomar response and need not search beyond asserted exemptions. | DEA must conduct a proper search; judgment vacated to require search and potential production. |
| Whether Starita's informant status defeats a Glomar response | Trial transcripts show Starita’s informant status and cooperation; thus official confirmation exists. | Starita’s trial testimony does not constitute official confirmation for FOIA § 552(c)(2) purposes. | STARITA’s status evidence undermines a blanket Glomar defense; not dispositive, but supports disclosure considerations. |
| Whether the court should revise its previous summary judgment order on Count I | Interim authorities and public-domain evidence necessitate reconsideration. | No reconsideration warranted since prior ruling was correct. | The court grants reconsideration and vacates the summary judgment on Count I; directs a proper search. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cottone v. Reno, 193 F.3d 550 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (public-domain materials lose protection when disclosed in a permanent public record; initial burden to show public-domain content)
- Davis v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 968 F.2d 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (burden on plaintiff to show public-domain information)
- Benavides v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 968 F.2d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (informant testimony and cooperation can affect FOIA exemptions analysis)
- Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 169 F.3d 16 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (identical public information defeats exemption)