Marino v. DOJ, No. 16-5280, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24658 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 6, 2017) (per curiam)

Date: 
Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Marino v. DOJ, No. 16-5280, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24658 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 6, 2017) (per curiam)

Re: Requests for records concerning requester, as well as concerning third-party trial and investigation

Disposition: Granting government's motion for summary affirmance; denying requester's motion to file surreply

  • Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit holds that "the district court correctly concluded that the search for responsive records was adequate[.]"  The court finds that "[the requester's] unsupported and speculative allegations that there must be more responsive documents in the possession of the U.S. Attorney's Offices do not raise substantial doubt as to the adequacy of the search."
     
  • Waiver:  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit relates that "[the requester] argues that he is entitled to disclosure of certain information he requested from [DOJ] under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act because the information is already in the public domain."  The district court previously granted summary judgment to the government regarding the use of exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D) and 7(F).  The court finds that "[the requester], however, has failed to 'point to "specific" information' in the public domain that is 'identical to that being withheld.'"
     
  • Fees and Fee Waivers, Fees:  "[O]n the [Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's] own motion, [the court directs] that within 30 days from the date of this order, [DOJ] inform the court whether the U.S. Attorney's Offices spent 320 hours searching their records, as was estimated in the fee letter to [the requester] dated November 20, 2012."  "If fewer than 320 hours were spent, [DOJ] [is] directed to show cause why any overpayment should not be reimbursed to appellant."
Topic: 
District Court
Fees and Fee Waiver
Litigation Considerations
Updated June 29, 2018