DiGirolamo v. DEA, No. 15-5737, 2017 WL 4382097 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2017) (Carter, Jr., J.)

DiGirolamo v. DEA, No. 15-5737, 2017 WL 4382097 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2017) (Carter, Jr., J.)

Re:  Requests for records concerning plaintiff

Disposition:  Granting defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 7, Threshold:  The court holds that "the records meet the threshold for Exemption 7 as being compiled for a law enforcement purpose."  The court relates that "[plaintiff] requested investigative reports[,]" as well as "DEA reports, cables, an internal memorandum, and include material provided by coded confidential sources, all regarding an investigation into international heroin trafficking that led to [plaintiff's] arrest and conviction."
   
• Exemption 7(C):  The court holds that "the DEA properly invoked Exemption 7(C)."  The court finds that "the private interest is the law enforcement officers, government employees, and third-party individuals' interest in the nondisclosure of their identifying information."  The court finds that "[plaintiff's public interest] allegations are speculative and unsupported, and thus, do not rise above the level of bare suspicion."
   
• Exemption 7(D):  The court relates that "DEA made express assurances to its five confidential sources that their information will be held as confidential to the fullest extent possible."  "Thus, the DEA properly invoked Exemption 7(D)."
   
• Exemption 7(E):  The court holds that "G-DEP identifiers relate to techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations, and as such, courts have routinely held their nondisclosure proper."  "The Court upholds the DEA's invocation here."
   
• Exemption 7(F):  The court relates that "[t]he DEA invoked this exemption in withholding the identifying information of DEA law enforcement personnel, DEA Special Agents (and supervisors), other law enforcement personnel, and confidential sources."  The court finds that, "[g]iven [plaintiff's] crime of conviction, his alleged connection to organized crime, and his prior threats to the officers involved, . . .  the application of the exemption is especially appropriate."
   
• Fees and Fee Waivers, Fee Waivers:  "The Court finds that the DEA properly found that the public interest prong was not met."  The court explains that "[plaintiff's] allegations of such misconduct are purely conclusory, and therefore, insufficient."  "Moreover, the subject matter of [plaintiff's] FOIA requests reveals that the true purpose of the requests is not to benefit the public, but to help himself."
   
• Waiver:  The court finds that "[plaintiff] fails to meet his burden by not providing any details about how he obtained the purported DEA materials or how these materials were disclosed and to whom."  "His possession of the DEA materials does not indicate that they are publicly available or even in the public domain."  "If [plaintiff] received these materials during his criminal case as part of any mandated disclosure, then it would reinforce the conclusion that the public domain doctrine is inapplicable."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:  The court finds that "[t]he DEA has not taken any further action with regards to [one of plaintiff's] request for documents[.]"  "The DEA argues that such action is justified because [plaintiff] has failed to take any further administrative steps after being apprised of the fee . . . and thus his request is unexhausted."  "The Court agrees."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Discovery:  The court finds that "[defendant's] declaration is reasonably detailed and submitted in good faith."  "[Plaintiff] has made no showing of bad faith on the part of the DEA."  "Accordingly, discovery is not warranted."