Arevalo v. DEA, No. 21-60102, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171172 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2024) (Smith, J.)
Date
Arevalo v. DEA, No. 21-60102, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171172 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2024) (Smith, J.)
Re: Request for records concerning plaintiff
Disposition: Granting defendants’ renewed motion for summary judgment
- Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search: The court finds that “DEA’s search was adequate.” “In its prior Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court found that the search performed by EOUSA was adequate.” “Thus, only the adequacy of DEA’s search remains at issue.” “Plaintiff argues that the search conducted by DEA was inadequate because DEA has not disclosed the search terms used and because the search performed by DEA appears to have been designed to find only records that fall within Exemption 7(A).” “While Plaintiff questions DEA’s failure to disclose the search terms used to find potentially responsive documents, Plaintiff has not explained how or why those terms are relevant to determining whether the search was adequate.” “Regardless, the search terms used by DEA are disclosed in the in camera . . . Declaration.” “Based on that disclosure, the search terms used by DEA were adequate.” “Additionally, the . . . Declaration clarifies that the search performed by DEA would have found any potentially responsive emails or other communications.” “Plaintiff also challenges how the search was conducted.” “Plaintiff argues that the search DEA performed was of databases and office records that would have been compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and maintained as part of an investigative case, but Plaintiff also seeks documents and communication with journalists and the media.” “Plaintiff maintains these documents might be found elsewhere because they might not be part of an investigative file or compiled for law enforcement purposes and that DEA has failed to show that its searches would have found such responsive documents that were not compiled as part of an investigation.” “However, a review of the FOIA request to DEA indicates that any documents covered by the FOIA request would relate to an investigation, including Plaintiff’s requests for communications concerning Plaintiff or [a related operation] between DEA and certain media and journalists and records of any meetings between DEA and certain media and journalists.” “Thus, DEA has established that the searches it performed were reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.”
- Exemption 7(A): The court finds that “[a]ny potentially responsive documents have been categorized, Defendants have conducted a document-by-document review, and the in camera . . . Declaration sets out how the release of each category of documents would interfere with enforcement proceedings.” “Thus, Defendants have met their burden on summary judgment.”
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Exemption 7(A)
Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search
Updated October 28, 2024