Wilson v. United States Department of Justice
42 F. Supp. 3d 207
D.D.C.2014Background
- Wilson, a convicted murderer, seeks a recording of a June 1999 conversation between Capies (an informant) and Roberson to aid his exoneration efforts via FOIA.
- DOJ issued a Glomar response under FOIA Exemption 7(C), refusing to confirm or deny the recording’s existence to protect third-party privacy.
- Trial disclosures showed Roberson and Capies were publicly identified in prior proceedings, including Capies’s interview and Roberson’s death after the trial.
- Wilson filed suit; DOJ and EOUSA moved for summary judgment, arguing Exemption 7(C) shielded disclosure.
- Wilson introduced new documents (Capies interview, Controlled Operation notes, Roberson obituary) prompting DOJ to adjust its position in reply.
- Court concludes DOJ’s Glomar response is unjustified in light of prior disclosures and orders a denial of summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Glomar response was appropriate under Exemption 7(C). | Wilson argues existence was already disclosed; Glomar not justified. | DOJ contends privacy interests justify withholding or refusing to confirm. | Glomar inappropriate; disclosure or confirmation required. |
| Capies’s privacy interest in concealment of informant status and related records. | Capies’s status has been officially disclosed, undermining privacy grounds. | Capies retains some privacy in content and association with records. | Capies has no remaining privacy interest to justify Glomar. |
| Roberson’s privacy interest in concealing the existence of the record. | Roberson’s death weakens privacy interest; existence already acknowledged. | Roberson may still have privacy in content; existence may still be sensitive. | Roberson has no remaining privacy interest in concealing the existence. |
| Whether DOJ can tailor FOIA response or must confirm existence for Capies-Roberson recording. | Court should compel confirmation; tailored disclosure could be allowed. | Glomar must protect informant confidentiality; disclosure should be avoided. | If record exists, DOJ must confirm or justify withholding; tailored disclosure possible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (Glomar affects privacy interests in record existence)
- Marino v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 685 F.3d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (Glomar response proper when revealing existence harms privacy)
- Roth v. Dep’t of Justice, 642 F.3d 1161 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (privacy interests in informants and witnesses; balancing required)
- Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (detailed explanations required for nondisclosures)
- Beck v. Dep’t of Justice, 997 F.2d 1489 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (strong presumption in favor of disclosure; balancing framework)
- Benavides v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 968 F.2d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (informant status official confirmation affects Glomar availability)
- Public Citizen v. Department of State, 11 F.3d 198 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (fishing expedition limitations; official acknowledgment matters)