Skip to main content

Patino-Restrepo v. DOJ, No. 14-1866, 2017 WL 1194163 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2017) (Chutkan, J.)

Date

Patino-Restrepo v. DOJ, No. 14-1866, 2017 WL 1194163 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2017) (Chutkan, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning plaintiff

 

Disposition: Granting defendants' motion for summary judgment

  • Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search: "Plaintiff does not challenge, and the court finds sufficient, the adequacy of EOUSA's search." The court similarly finds that ICE's and BOP's searches were adequate. The court finds similarly regarding the withholdings made by the State Department.
     
  • Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege: "Plaintiff does not challenge, and the court finds sufficient, EOUSA's invocation of exemption 5 with regard to the memoranda and summaries of witness interviews conducted in anticipation of the criminal case against Plaintiff."
     
  • Exemptions 6 & 7(C): Regarding EOUSA's withholdings, the court holds that "[p]laintiff has not established that there is a significant public interest that merits disclosure of the records withheld by EOUSA pursuant to exemptions 7(C) and 6, and EOUSA has fulfilled its obligations under FOIA." The court relates that defendant's withheld "'[p]ersonally identifiable information that consists of the names of government attorneys on the litigation team, law enforcement personnel, and in a few instances names and photographs of witnesses' involved in the criminal case[.]" The court finds that "[p]laintiff has provided no evidence, such as testimony or documentary evidence, which could lead a reasonable person to believe that the government committed Brady violations in Plaintiff's case." Also, "[t]o the extent Plaintiff claims the government committed misconduct by arguing at trial that he was a member of the cartel, separately from any Brady violations, that claim cannot overcome the privacy interests invoked by EOUSA." Similarly, regarding ICE's withholdings, the court finds that "ICE invoked FOIA exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold names of Plaintiff's co-defendants and other targets of investigation, the names of jury forepersons who signed various superseding indictments of Plaintiff, the names of prosecuting attorneys, and the names of HSI agents." "Plaintiff has identified no public interest in the information that would merit disclosure." Regarding BOP's withholdings, the court finds that "[p]laintiff has identified no public interest that outweighs the privacy interests of the third parties mentioned in the records, or the law enforcement officer in the privacy of his direct phone number." Regarding the State Department's withholdings, the court finds that "[b]ecause Plaintiff seeks information pertaining to specific individuals, and has not identified a public interest that would warrant disclosure despite the privacy interests of those individuals pursuant to FOIA exemptions 6 and 7(C), the court finds that a line-by-line review of the database search results from the Central File would both be futile, because the information would be exempt, and unreasonably burdensome." Additionally, "[t]he court finds . . . redactions [made by DOJ pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C)] would be proper pursuant to those exemptions, even if the entire document were not exempt as work product, as there is no public interest in the information that would outweigh the privacy interest." Also, "the court finds that "[p]laintiff has not identified any public interest that would weigh in favor of disclosure with regards to the privacy-related exemption, 7(C)." Additionally, the "FBI noted, and the court agrees, that withholding [certain] information would . . . be appropriate pursuant to exemption 6 and exemption 7(C), as Plaintiff has not identified an overriding public interest and the privacy interest of individuals named in the records is strong."
     
  • Exemption 7(E): "The court is satisfied that ICE's 7(E) withholdings were . . . appropriate." The court relates that "ICE also invoked FOIA exemption 7(E) as to information pertaining to non-public case numbers and law enforcement techniques." Similarly, "[t]he court finds [the use of this] exemption[] appropriate and that State has fulfilled its disclosure obligations under FOIA." Also, "[t]he court is satisfied that DEA has provided sufficient information to justify withholding under exemption[] . . . 7(E)[.]"
     
  • Exemption 7(F): The court finds that "BOP [properly] invoked exemption 7(F) to redact information pertaining to BOP staff names and identities, as well as to the third parties named in Plaintiff's FOIA request." Similarly, "[t]he court finds [the use of this] exemption[] appropriate and that State has fulfilled its disclosure obligations under FOIA." Also, " [t]he court is satisfied that DEA has provided sufficient information to justify withholding under exemption[] . . . 7(F)."
     
  • Exemption 7(A): The court relates that "State has withheld information pursuant to exemption[] 7(A) . . . concerning pending investigations related to Plaintiff's case as well as law enforcement procedures and techniques involved in extradition." "The court finds [the use of this] exemption[] appropriate and that State has fulfilled its disclosure obligations under FOIA." Also, "[t]he court is satisfied that DEA has provided sufficient information to justify withholding under exemption[] 7(A)[.]" Also, "the court finds FBI's justification of its withholding pursuant to 7(A) adequate." The court explains that "[the FBI] explained that the information was 'contained in files pertaining to the FBI's investigation of one or more Colombian crime organizations,' which was ongoing at the time of the declaration."
     
  • Exemption 5, Attorney Work-Product: "DOJ withheld the document as attorney work product pursuant to exemption 5, and the court finds DOJ has demonstrated that the withholding was proper."
     
  • Exemption 7(D): " The court is satisfied that DEA has provided sufficient information to justify withholding under exemption[] . . . 7(D)[.]"
     
  • Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Obligations: The court holds that "[a]n agency is 'entitled to a presumption that [it] complied with the obligation to disclose reasonably segregable material.'" "Plaintiff has not offered any evidence to 'successfully rebut[] this presumption.'" "Each agency conducted a segregability analysis and released information where it was segregable from exempt information." "The court therefore finds that the agencies have all complied with FOIA's segregability requirement."
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Exemption 5
Exemption 5, Attorney Work-Product Privilege
Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege
Exemption 6
Exemption 7(A)
Exemption 7(C)
Exemption 7(D)
Exemption 7(E)
Exemption 7(F)
Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search
Procedural Requirements, “Reasonably Segregable” Obligation
Updated December 15, 2021