Patino-Restrepo v. United States Department of Justice
246 F. Supp. 3d 233
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Carlos Arturo Patino-Restrepo (Restrepo) sought via FOIA medical, prison, and law-enforcement records relating to his prosecution and a list of ~38 third parties ("Listed Individuals").
- Agencies receiving or processing the requests included EOUSA, ICE (HSI), BOP, State, DOJ Criminal Division, DEA, and FBI; agencies conducted searches, made referrals, and released/redacted portions of records under FOIA and Privacy Act exemptions.
- EOUSA/USAO-EDNY produced limited material and withheld memoranda, interview summaries, and other materials as attorney work product (Exemption 5) and redacted personal identifying information under Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
- ICE, BOP, DEA, FBI, DOJ, and State each conducted searches and invoked a mix of FOIA exemptions—commonly 6, 7(C), 7(E), 7(F), 7(A), 7(D), and for State, Exemption 1/classification and 5 (deliberative process/work product)—to withhold or redact responsive records.
- Plaintiff argued government misconduct (e.g., alleged Brady/Napue issues) and challenged certain agency search adequacy (notably State’s Central File search) and adequacy of agency justifications/segregability.
- The court reviewed agency declarations, Vaughn indices, and the record and granted summary judgment to all Defendants, finding searches reasonable, exemptions properly applied, and segregability satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of agency searches | Searches were incomplete (esp. State Central File) and agencies should do line-by-line review | Agencies performed reasonable, targeted searches; line-by-line review would be unduly burdensome and/or futile given exemptions | Searches were adequate; line-by-line Central File review unnecessary and unduly burdensome |
| Withholding under attorney work-product/Exemption 5 | Withheld materials (interview memoranda, drafts) not protected or outweighed by public interest | Documents reflect prosecutorial litigation work product/pre-decisional deliberations; protected | Exemption 5 applies; withholdings justified |
| Withholding under privacy exemptions (6 and 7(C)) | Plaintiff asserted public interest (alleged Brady/Napue misconduct) outweighs privacy interests | Disclosure would invade privacy of third parties/witnesses and no strong public interest shown | Exemptions 6 and 7(C) apply; Plaintiff failed to show sufficient public interest or evidence of misconduct |
| Withholding under investigatory exemptions (7(A), 7(D), 7(E), 7(F), Exemption 1 for State) | Agencies failed to adequately describe withheld material; some justifications vague | Agencies sufficiently described investigative harm, confidentiality, techniques, or classification to justify nondisclosure | Exemptions applied properly; agencies demonstrated how disclosure could harm investigations or national security |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Dep’t of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1 (attorney work product and deliberative process privilege)
- Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (public-interest standard under Exemption 7(C))
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution suppression obligations)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (use of false testimony by prosecution)
- Steinberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 23 F.3d 548 (adequacy of FOIA search standard)
- U.S. Dep’t of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595 (scope of "similar files" under Exemption 6)
- Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106 (agency entitled to presumption of segregability compliance)