Schwartz v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration
692 F. App'x 73
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Mattathias Schwartz sought the DEA’s release of a redacted video of a May 11, 2012 drug interdiction raid near Ahuas, Honduras under FOIA.
- The DEA withheld the video in full under FOIA Exemption 7(E) as disclosing law enforcement techniques and procedures.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Schwartz and ordered the DEA to release the redacted Ahuas Video; DEA appealed interlocutorily.
- After oral argument, DOJ and State OIGs issued a public joint review of the raid that included narrative discussion and screenshots from the Ahuas Video disclosing many of the alleged techniques (e.g., radio communication, camera manufacturer/capabilities, number of surveillance planes, pursuit choices).
- The Second Circuit concluded disclosures in the OIG review and other public sources meant those techniques could not be withheld under Exemption 7(E); remaining withheld items either were already public, were not revealed by the video, or were factual circumstances rather than protectable techniques.
- The court affirmed the district court’s judgment and declined to resolve whether on-screen flight data might be protected under Exemption 7(E).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 7(E) permits withholding the Ahuas Video | Schwartz: Video must be released because its law‑enforcement techniques are already public | DEA: Video reveals protected techniques/procedures that Exemption 7(E) shields | Held: Much of the disputed material is already in the public domain (OIG review and other sources), so Exemption 7(E) does not permit withholding the video |
| Whether the OIG public report moots DEA’s Exemption 7(E) claim | Schwartz: The report discloses many techniques, defeating Exemption 7(E) protection | DEA: Report does not disclose all techniques; withholding still justified | Held: Report disclosed many techniques; undisclosed items either public elsewhere, not revealed by video, or are non‑protectable circumstances |
| Whether on‑screen flight/data elements are protected by Exemption 7(E) | Schwartz: Seeks release of redacted video including data | DEA: Specific flight data might reveal protected techniques and should be withheld | Held: Court declined to decide definitively; noted producing specific flight data might reveal protected techniques and the district court has not resolved it |
Key Cases Cited
- Wood v. FBI, 432 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard of de novo review for FOIA summary judgment)
- Inner City Press/Community on the Move v. Board of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 463 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2006) (public‑domain disclosures defeat FOIA withholding)
- Afshar v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 702 F.2d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (same principle on duplication by public domain)
- Hotel Emps. & Rest. Emps. Union, Local 100 v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Parks & Recreation, 311 F.3d 534 (2d Cir. 2002) (judicial notice of publicly available materials)