Cooper v. United States Dep't of Justice
| Decision Date | 27 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 99-2513 (RBW) |
| Parties | ELWOOD J. COOPER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
The plaintiff, Elwood J. Cooper, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this action against the United States Department of Justice (the “Justice Department”) the United States Marshals Service (the “Marshals Service”), and the United States Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury Department”) under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C § 552, seeking the release of “all records related to his arrest and prosecution.” Cooper v. Dep't of Just., 890 F.Supp.2d 55, 57-58 (D.D.C. 2012) (Walton J.). On March 14, 2016, following multiple decisions by the undersigned and other members of this Court and multiple remands by the District of Columbia Circuit over the twenty-plus-year duration of this case, the Court granted summary judgment to the defendants on what it understood to be “[t]he only remaining issue for the Court to resolve in this case[:] the propriety of the redactions made to the additional documents produced to the plaintiff in September 2005.” Cooper v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 169 F.Supp.3d 20, 32 (D.D.C. 2016) (Walton, J.) (“Cooper 2016”). In response to the Court's ruling, the plaintiff appealed, see Notice of Appeal at 1, ECF No. 146, and the Circuit subsequently remanded the case to this Court for consideration of what it concluded were further “unresolved issues in this case[, ]” namely, (1) “the withholdings in records produced to [the plaintiff] prior to [his] second appeal” and (2) “whether the agencies other than the [Marshals Service] conducted adequate searches for responsive records[, ]” Order at 1-2, Cooper v. U.S. Dep't of Just., No. 17-5219 (D.C. Cir. July 11, 2018) (“Cooper III”). In addition to the issues remanded by the Circuit, regarding which both parties have moved for summary judgment, see Defendants' Consolidated Brief ( ) at 14, ECF No. 154; Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion to the Court to Take Judicial Notice of the Record (“Pl.'s Apr. 4, 2019 Mot. for Judicial Notice”) at 4, ECF Nos. 160 & 169;[1] also pending before the Court are two motions filed by the plaintiff following the Circuit's remand: (1) the plaintiff's motion for judicial notice, see Pl.'s Apr. 4, 2019 Mot. for Judicial Notice, and (2) the plaintiff's motion for discovery, see Plaintiff's Motion to Proffer Interr[o]gatories and Request for Admission and Production of Documents in Respon[s]e to Defendants' Opposition to His Motion to Take Judicial Notice and Notices to the Court and the Defendants Out of Time (“Pl.'s Aug. 16, 2021 Mot. for Discovery”) at 1, ECF No. 174. Upon consideration of the parties' submissions and the entire record in this case, [2] the Court concludes for the following reasons that it must (1) grant in part and deny in part without prejudice the defendants' motion for summary judgment; (2) deny the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment; (3) deny the plaintiff's motion for the Court to take judicial notice; and (4) deny the plaintiff's motion for discovery.
Filed in September 1999, this case has a long and complicated procedural history that is partially outlined in the Court's September 11, 2012 (“Cooper 2012”) and March 14, 2016 (“Cooper 2016”) Memorandum Opinions.[3] See Cooper v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 890 F.Supp.2d 55, 58-60 (D.D.C. 2012) (“Cooper 2012”); Cooper 2016, 169 F.Supp.3d at 26-31. Because this Memorandum Opinion concerns issues that were not addressed in Cooper 2012 or Cooper 2016, the Court will set forth the background information necessary to resolve all of the issues currently pending before the Court.
The plaintiff, who “is currently incarcerated at the [United States] Penitentiary in Coleman, Florida, where he is serving a life sentence after being convicted of drug trafficking offenses in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida[, ]” seeks “records concerning his arrest and prosecution.” Cooper 2016, 169 F.Supp.3d at 26 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Pl.'s June 26, 2006 Objection at 6 (). Because the FOIA requests by the plaintiff that are at issue in this case concern his criminal case, the Court will begin by briefing summarizing the relevant portions of the plaintiff's criminal case, before turning to the FOIA requests submitted by the plaintiff.
On December 26, 1997, the plaintiff was arrested on charges related to an alleged conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States. See Minute (“Min.”) Entry (Dec. 26, 1997), United States v. Cooper, Crim. Case No. 9:97-cr-08125-KLR-2 (S.D. Fla.). On January 8, 1998, a grand jury issued a Superseding Indictment charging the plaintiff with one count of conspiracy to import cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963; one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; one count of importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1) & b, and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. See Superseding Indictment at 1-3, United States v. Cooper, Crim. Case No. 9:97-cr-08125-KLR-2 (S.D. Fla.), ECF No. 17. On that same day, the plaintiff pleaded not guilty. See Court Mins. (Jan. 8, 1998), United States v. Cooper, Crim. Case No. 9:97-cr-08125-KLR-2 (S.D. Fla.), ECF No. 18.
On March 16, 1998, a five-day jury trial began, see Min. Entry (Mar. 16, 1998), United States v. Cooper, Crim. Case No. 9:97-cr-08125-KLR-2 (S.D. Fla.), ECF No. 43, and, on March 20, 1998, a jury found the plaintiff guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts, see Verdict Form at 2, United States v. Kevin Joseph Moore & Elwood Cooper, Crim. Case No. 97-8125-CR-RYSKAMP (S.D. Fla.), ECF No. 52; Superseding Indictment at 1-3, United States v. Kevin Joseph Moore & Elwood Cooper, Crim. Case No. 97-8125-CR-RYSKAMP (S.D. Fla.), ECF No. 17. On September 11, 1998, the plaintiff was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. See Judgment at 1, United States v. Cooper, Crim. Case No. 97-8125-CR-2-RYSKAMP (S.D. Fla.), ECF No. 86. On September 18, 1998, the plaintiff appealed his conviction and sentence, see Notice of Appeal, United States v. Cooper, Crim. Case No. 97-8125-CR-2-RYSKAMP (S.D. Fla.), ECF No. 87, and on October 25, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the plaintiff's conviction and sentence, see Mandate at 11, United States v. Kevin Joseph Moore & Elwood Cooper, Crim. Case No. 97-8125-CR-RYSKAMP (S.D. Fla.), ECF No. 118.
On May 3, 1999, while his appeal of his criminal case was pending before the Eleventh Circuit, the plaintiff “submitted separate FOIA requests to the [DEA, Customs, the ATF, and the Marshals Service].” Cooper 2016, 169 F.Supp.3d at 26. The Court will discuss in turn the searches and productions of records completed by each agency in response to the plaintiff's requests.[4]
On May 3, 1999, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the DEA, seeking records related to (1) his name and criminal case, see Wassom Decl., Exhibit (“Ex.”) A (Pl.'s DEA FOIA Request) at 1; (2) the employment of DEA Special Agent Ray Catena, Jr., Biran Arrandale, and Ihormity Collins, see id., Ex. A (Pl.'s DEA FOIA Request) at 3; and (3) the “authority granting any agency, particularly the Coast Guard, [ ] Customs, [the Justice Department, ] and[/]or any other agenc[ies] of the United States [ ] authoriz[ed] entry [into] foreign territorial waters for the purpose of mounting a narcotic operation concerning citizens of that foreign country without approval of the [g]overnment of that country[, ]” id., Ex. A (Pl.'s DEA FOIA Request) at 4. “By letter dated May 18, 1999, [the] DEA informed the plaintiff that it was necessary for him to provide [further] identifying information[, ]” id. ¶ 9; see id., Ex. B (Letter from Linda M. Vettori to Elwood J. Cooper (May 18, 1999)) at 2, and, thereafter, the plaintiff submitted a certification of identity, providing his full name, date of birth, and place of birth, see id., Ex. B (Certification of Identity) at 2.
“By letter dated January 3, 2000, [the] DEA released portions of [thirteen] pages to the plaintiff[, ]” and “withheld [277 pages] in their entirety.” Id. ¶ 11; see id., Ex. D (Letter from Katherine L. Myrick, Chief, Freedom of Information Operations Unit, Drug Enforcement Admin., to Elwood J. Cooper (Jan. 3, 2000) (“DEA Jan. 3, 2000 Production”)) at 2. Of the thirteen pages that were produced, the DEA withheld information “pursuant to [FOIA E]xemptions (b)(2), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), and (b)(7)(F)” and Privacy Act Exemption (j)(2). Id. ¶ 11; see id., Ex. D (DEA Jan. 3, 2000 Production) at 2.
On that same date, the DEA also notified the plaintiff by a second letter that the plaintiff's “name was mentioned in two ‘related' files” (the “related files”), and that “if [the pla...
To continue reading
Request your trial