McKneely v. DOJ, No. 13-1097, 2015 WL 5675515 (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 2015) (Sullivan, J.)

McKneely v. DOJ, No. 13-1097, 2015 WL 5675515 (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 2015) (Sullivan, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning criminal investigation of plaintiff and plaintiff's arrest

Disposition: Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  "[T]he Court grants summary judgment to defendant on the search question."  The court relates that defendant searched "'the index to and the practical means by which DEA retrieves investigative reports and information from' . . . DEA’s Privacy Act system of records that contains all administrative, general, and criminal investigative files compiled for law enforcement purposes."  The court also relates that "[defendant] avers that any records responsive to plaintiff’s request would have been maintained in [this system of records]."
   
• Exemption 7, Threshold:  "Given that plaintiff requested all records pertaining to a criminal investigation, it is safe to conclude that the records were compiled for law enforcement purposes."  "Moreover, DEA’s declarant confirms as much."
   
• Exemption 7(C):  "[T]he Court finds that defendant is entitled to summary judgment on exemption 7(C)."  The court relates that "DEA redacted the identities of and personal information about third-party law enforcement personnel, suspects, co-defendants, witnesses, potential witnesses and confidential sources."  "The disclosure of such information, [defendant] avers, could 'have a potentially stigmatizing or embarrassing effect on the individual and cause them to be subjected to unnecessary public scrutiny and scorn.'"  In response to plaintiff's asserted public interest, the court finds "that '[plaintiff’s] personal stake in the release of the requested information is 'irrelevant' to the balancing of public and third-party privacy interests required by [e]xemption 7(C).'"
   
• Exemption 7(D):  "[T]he Court finds that defendant is entitled to summary judgment on this exemption."  The court relates that "DEA’s declarant indicates that information was withheld based on an implied grant of confidentiality to individuals who 'were associated with or involved in [p]laintiff’s criminal activities.'"  "She avers that plaintiff was convicted of trafficking in cocaine, had a criminal history of 'firearms violations and violence,' and was arrested with a weapon."  In response to plaintiff's counter-argument, the court finds that "[w]hat plaintiff fails to grasp is that the threshold law enforcement purpose is satisfied irrespective of who was the target of the investigation if, as here, the responsive information is contained in records that were compiled for that purpose."
   
• Exemption 7(E):  The court holds that "summary judgment is granted to defendant on exemption 7(E)."  The court relates that "DEA withheld G–DEP codes and NADDIS numbers, which are 'identifiers [that] relate[ ] solely to internal DEA practices and can only be legitimately utilized by agency personnel functioning within the agency.'"  The court accepts defendant's explanation that release of this information "could 'thwart ... DEA’s investigative and law enforcement efforts' because if decoded, '[s]uspects [could] change their pattern of drug trafficking' based on what they think DEA knows or 'avoid detection and apprehension and create excuses for suspected activities[,]" and "'could allow violators to avoid apprehension, and could place law enforcement personnel or informants in danger, since many details of a DEA investigation would be disclosed.'"
   
• Exemption 7(F):  "Since the Court has already approved the redaction of the same information under exemption 7(C), it will not address the exemption 7(F) claim but finds it properly invoked."
   
• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements:  "The Court is satisfied that DEA has released all reasonably segregable non-exempt information contained in the responsive records."  The court relates that "DEA’s declarant avers that '[a]ll of the responsive information was examined to determine whether any reasonably segregable information could be released.'"