Gilliam v. DOJ, No. 14-00036, 2017 WL 706148 (D.D.C. Feb. 22, 2017) (Mehta, J.)

Gilliam v. DOJ, No. 14-00036, 2017 WL 706148 (D.D.C. Feb. 22, 2017) (Mehta, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning plaintiff

Disposition: Granting defendants' motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search: "The court is satisfied that Defendants have shown that their search was adequate." The court holds that "DEA searched the computer database that most likely would identify responsive records." "Nothing more is required." Responding to plaintiff's arguments, the court finds that "[p]laintiff's speculation that records might exist in a field office does not render the DEA's search inadequate." Additionally, the court finds that "DEA's non-production of specific records that Plaintiff expected to receive does not render its search inadequate."
   
• Exemption 7(C): The court agrees with defendants' use of Exemption 7(C) "to withhold 'the identities of DEA Special Agents . . . and other law enforcement officers[]'" and finds that "[p]laintiff['s] claim[] that the DEA agents acted unlawfully in executing [certain] search warrants . . . comes nowhere close to the 'compelling evidence' needed to satisfy the exception to Exemption 7(C)'s categorical rule against disclosure."
   
• Exemption 7(D): The court finds that "[d]efendants easily meet Exemption 7(D)'s 'reasonable expectation' standard[]" because "[defendant] explains that some of the responsive information concerns 'coded' informants who continue to cooperate with the DEA 'by written signed agreement[. . . and] they are expressly assured confidentiality in their identities and the information they provide to DEA.'"
   
• Exemption 7(E): "[T]he court finds that the DEA's withholding of G–DEP and NADDIS numbers under Exemption 7[(E)] was proper." The court points to defendants' explanation that "[the] numbers correlate to information such as the classification of the violator, the types and amount of suspected drugs involved, the priority of the investigation, and the suspected location and scope of criminal activity[]" and "if these numbers are disclosed it could adversely impact the DEA's investigative activities and enable suspects to avoid detection."
   
• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements: "The court also is satisfied that Defendants met their obligation to disclose any reasonably segregable information." "Having reviewed the documents released to Plaintiff . . . it is apparent that Defendants conducted a line-by-line inquiry to determine whether any non-exempt portions of the records could be released." "That observation, coupled with [defendants'] statements in both declarations that all responsive material 'was examined to determine whether any reasonably segregable information could be released,'" . . . satisfies the agencies' duty of segregability."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Discovery: "The court rejects [plaintiff's request for discovery], as Plaintiff has offered only pure conjecture and no actual evidence of bad faith on the part of Defendants to support his taking of discovery."