Skip to main content

Chavis v. DOJ, No. 20-00638, 2021 WL 1668069 (D.D.C. Apr. 28, 2021) (McFadden, J.)

Date

Chavis v. DOJ, No. 20-00638, 2021 WL 1668069 (D.D.C. Apr. 28, 2021) (McFadden, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning client and client's co-defendants

Disposition:  Granting defendants' motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment

  • Exemptions 6 & 7(C):  The court relates that "DEA asserts that any information on these co-defendants was categorically exempt under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C)."  "The DEA claims that release of this information 'would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of [their] privacy' and [plaintiff] 'articulated no legitimate public interest in the information.'"  "[Plaintiff] offers no reason to doubt the DEA's representations."  "Nor does he proffer any 'overriding public interest' to disclose these documents."  "Indeed, he does not dispute the DEA's position that the 'records were categorically exempt from disclosure, and DEA was not required to conduct a search for the requested records' absent 'an overriding public interest.'"  "The DEA thus had no obligation to search for records on [plaintiff's] co-defendants."
     
  • Litigation considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court holds that "DEA's search was 'reasonably calculated' to identify relevant documents."  "The [Investigative Reporting and Filing System ("IRFS")] contains 'all DEA law enforcement intelligence and investigative information maintained on an individual,' as well as '[r]ecords from other DEA record systems that are related to an individual's involvement in, or association with, a DEA intelligence operation or civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation.'"  "And the DEA uses [the Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Information System ("NADDIS")] to identify records in IRFS across all DEA offices."  "So a 'search of IRFS using NADDIS is a worldwide search for DEA records, including records maintained at field offices.'"  Additionally, the court finds that "even if [plaintiff] is correct about the existence of another database, the DEA's decision to rely on IRFS is still 'reasonably calculated' because it would have captured records maintained in other systems."

    Responding to plaintiff's argument that "DEA should not have 'focus[ed] on individual personal identifying information'" and "'that the search as constructed 'would not identify all documents related to the investigation of [related] murders,'" the court finds that "[i]f he sought all documents on the investigation into the [related] murders, he could have made that request."  "He did not."  "It is unrealistic to expect the DEA (or any federal agency) to read between the lines and hunt for a class of documents that a plaintiff has not identified as potentially relevant."  Regarding plaintiff's objection concerning missing documents, the court finds that "a 'reasonable and thorough search may have missed' documents responsive to [plaintiff's] FOIA request."  "But that alone does not make the DEA's search inadequate."
     
  • Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F):  The court relates that "DEA did not disclose material under FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F)."  "[Plaintiff'] does not challenge the DEA's decision to invoke these exemptions."  "So the Court need not walk through the withholdings under each."  "The Court notes, however, that the DEA's withholdings were proper."  "For example, the DEA applied Exemption 7(E) to withhold 'Geo-Drug Enforcement Program . . . identifiers, NADDIS numbers,' and other 'investigative reporting procedures.'"  "Release of this information could allow 'criminals [to] restructure their activities' or 'identif[y] the investigative interest or priority' that the DEA assigns to its investigations, and criminals could 'change their pattern of activity to avoid detection, apprehension, or create alibis for suspected activities.'"  "The DEA also applied Exemptions 7(C), (D), and (F) to withhold names and other information about third parties, including 'law enforcement personnel, witnesses, suspects, co-defendants and confidential sources of information.'"  "The DEA represents that disclosure of this information 'could subject [these third parties] to possible harassment, or focus derogatory inferences and suspicion upon them.'"  "Disclosure also 'could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a confidential source or information furnished by a confidential source.'"  "Again, this third-party information is protected from disclosure."  The court also finds "[t]hat the FOIA request relates to [plaintiff's client's] post-conviction proceeding is immaterial."  "FOIA rightly does not condone these fishing expeditions, even for criminal defendants."
     
  • Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration:  The court relates that "[plaintiff] only argues that the DEA's Vaughn index does not provide enough detail about the withheld material."  "The Court disagrees."  "The Vaughn index generally includes the document's Bates number, a date and description for each document, the information redacted and the reason(s) for the redactions, and the FOIA exemptions applied."  "Indeed, [plaintiff] does not dispute that the 'Vaughn index identifies the FOIA exemptions pursuant to which responsive records were withheld; describes the content of the documents to the extent possible; and specifies the bases for the invoked exemptions.'"
     
  • Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements:  The court holds that "[t]he 'DEA examined each responsive page to determine whether there was any reasonably segregable information and all reasonably segregable information was released.'"  "[Plaintiff] does not dispute this (or any other) fact."  "His concession alone is enough to find that the DEA satisfied its segregability obligation."  "The Court thus finds that the 'combination of the Vaughn index and the affidavit[ ] . . . are sufficient to fulfill the [DEA's] obligation to show with "reasonable specificity" why a document cannot be further segregated.'"
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Exemption 6
Exemption 7(C)
Exemption 7(D)
Exemption 7(E)
Exemption 7(F)
Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search
Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declarations
Litigation Considerations, “Reasonably Segregable” Requirements
Updated May 17, 2021