Sarno v. United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
278 F. Supp. 3d 112
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Michael John Sarno, a federal prisoner convicted of RICO and illegal gambling, submitted FOIA requests (Sept. 2014) seeking records relating to his criminal case from ATF and the DOJ Tax Division; he sued after unsatisfactory agency responses.
- ATF located a Chicago Field Office case file and, after database checks, collected a massive set of materials (≈32,575–43,370 pages plus electronic media) and withheld all responsive records, asserting multiple FOIA exemptions and that no nonexempt segregable portions exist.
- ATF did not produce a Vaughn index but offered categorical descriptions for eight document groups and primarily invoked Exemption 7(A) based on ongoing §2255 habeas proceedings.
- Tax searched TaxDoc and other systems, located 29 pages responsive, reviewed 10 pages internally (withheld or redacted some) and referred 19 pages to IRS, EOUSA, and FBI; those referral agencies provided supplemental declarations and withheld material under Exemption 3 and other exemptions.
- The Court found Tax’s search, withholdings, referrals, and segregability showing adequate and granted Tax summary judgment; the Court found ATF’s search adequate but denied ATF summary judgment and ordered ATF to supplement its submissions with greater specificity about which materials (if any) are already in the public domain and the precise application of claimed exemptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of ATF search | ATF delayed and did not adequately search or describe withheld records | ATF: Chicago Field Office search + N‑FORCE and TECS queries were reasonably calculated to locate responsive records | Search adequate; ATF search validated by court (search not contested) |
| Applicability of Exemption 7(A) to ATF file (given ongoing §2255 habeas) | §2255 is collateral and does not make the investigative file "pending" for 7(A); 7(A) shouldn’t be used to indefinitely shield closed files | ATF: disclosure could interfere with the government’s defense in pending §2255 proceedings and risk prejudice; 7(A) applies here | Court: 7(A) may apply where a §2255 proceeding is pending and could make retrial likely; ATF may rely on 7(A) here given circumstances |
| Sufficiency of ATF’s categorical withholdings / additional exemptions & segregability | ATF’s categorical descriptions and blanket nonsegregability determination are too general; court cannot assess application of other exemptions without more detail | ATF: categories with generic justifications suffice in lieu of a full Vaughn index for a law‑enforcement file | Held for plaintiff: ATF must supplement its record descriptions (more specific affidavits or index) and explain which materials entered the public domain and the application of each claimed exemption; summary judgment denied for ATF |
| Tax Division and referral agencies’ searches, exemptions, and segregability | Sarno argued referrals (IRS, EOUSA, FBI) did not sufficiently describe withheld documents or justify exemptions/segregability | Tax: conducted adequate searches, described its own withholdings in detail; referral agencies provided supplemental declarations showing Exemption 3 (grand jury, wiretap, tax) and other exemptions where appropriate | Court: Tax’s search/withholdings adequate and segregability addressed; grants summary judgment to Tax |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (recognizing FOIA exemptions structure and agency withholding authority)
- Robbins Tire & Rubber Co. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 214 (Exemption 7(A) protects records that could interfere with law enforcement proceedings)
- Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (Exemption 3 analysis focuses on the existence of a statute prohibiting disclosure)
- Maydak v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 218 F.3d 760 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (categorical withholdings for investigative files and use of categories in lieu of a full Vaughn index)
- Fund for Constitutional Gov’t v. NARA, 656 F.2d 856 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (grand jury materials presumptively nondisclosable under Rule 6(e) and Exemption 3)
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165 (explaining confidentiality needed for Exemption 7(D))
- Cottone v. Reno, 193 F.3d 550 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (public‑domain doctrine limits FOIA protection once material is part of the public record)