Dale v. U.S. Drug Enf't Agency
| Decision Date | 31 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 20-1248 (EGS) |
| Parties | CURTIS LEE DALE, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Plaintiff Curtis Lee Dale brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), see 5 U.S.C § 552, demanding release of records maintained by the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”).[1] This matter has come before the Court on the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) and for the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion.
Plaintiff, who was the subject of a DEA investigation leading to his conviction of various drug offenses, see United States v. Dale, No. 3:16-cr-00033 (S.D. Iowa Feb. 27, 2017), aff'd, No. 17-1505 (8th Cir. Mar. 19, 2018) (per curiam), submitted three FOIA requests to DEA for the following information:
See Corrected and Amended Statement of Material Facts Not in Genuine Dispute (ECF No. 25-1, “SMF”) ¶¶ 2-4; see also Decl. of Angela D. Hertel (ECF No. 19-3, “First Hertel Decl.”), Exhs. A-C (ECF Nos. 19-4, 19-5 and 19-6). DEA assigned the matter a single tracking number, 19-00413-P. See SMF ¶ 5.
A search of DEA's electronic databases, described in greater detail below, located 157 pages of records at DEA's Omaha Division and its North Central Laboratory. See id. ¶¶ 14-16. On October 14, 2020, DEA released 103 pages in part, after having redacted information under Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E) and 7(F). Id. ¶ 20. On January 5, 2021, DEA notified plaintiff that it erred by having “inadvertently missed” 54 pages of responsive records. Id. ¶ 22. Of these 54 pages, DEA released 32 pages in part, having redacted information under Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(E), and 7(F). Id. In addition, DEA referred 19 pages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and three pages to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”). See id. ¶ 23. FBI released 19 pages in part, having redacted information under Exemption 7(E), id. ¶ 24, and ATF withheld its three pages in full under Exemption 3, id. ¶ 25.[2]
The “vast majority” of FOIA cases can be decided on motions for summary judgment. Brayton v. Office of U.S. Trade Representative, 641 F.3d 521, 527 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The Court grants summary judgment if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “Under FOIA, all underlying facts and inferences are analyzed in the light most favorable to the FOIA requester; as such, only after an agency proves that it has fully discharged its FOIA obligations is summary judgment appropriate.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 60 F.Supp.3d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2014) (citations omitted).
“An agency is required to perform more than a perfunctory search in response to a FOIA request.” Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dep 't of State, 641 F.3d 504, 514 (D.C. Cir. 2011). It “fulfills its obligations under FOIA if it can demonstrate beyond material doubt that its search was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321, 325 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “[T]he issue to be resolved is not whether there might exist any other documents possibly responsive to the request, but rather whether the search for those documents was adequate.” Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). To meet its burden, an agency may rely on affidavits or declarations explaining the method and scope of its search, see Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 126 (D.C. Cir. 1982), and such affidavits or declarations are “accorded a presumption of good faith, which cannot be rebutted by purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other documents,” SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). At a minimum, the agency must “specify ‘what records were searched, by whom, and through what process.'” Rodriguez v. Dep't of Defense, 236 F.Supp.3d 26, 38 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Steinberg v. Dep't of Justice, 23 F.3d 548, 552 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). If the record before the Court “leaves substantial doubt as to the sufficiency of the search, summary judgment for the agency is not proper.” Truitt v. Dep't of State, 897 F.2d 540, 542 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
DEA's declarant explains that the agency maintains investigative records in the Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Information System (“NADDIS”), “a centralized . . . data index system that captures discrete information collected during the course of an investigation, including a brief historical summary of case activities from investigative reports, such as dates of arrest and any subsequent criminal sentences.” First Hertel Decl. ¶ 18; See SMF ¶ 9. While NADDIS itself is not a repository of DEA records, See First Hertel Decl. ¶ 20, it “provides an abstract of information . . . includ[ing] investigative case numbers linked to an individual who is the subject of [an] investigation,” id. ¶ 18; see id. ¶ 20.
When an individual becomes the subject of a DEA investigation, information about him “is indexed into NADDIS,” and “NADDIS automatically assigns [him] a unique systemgenerated number, [called] the NADDIS number.” Id. ¶ 19. As information from the investigation is added, NADDIS “automatically links that information to the individual's NADDIS number.” Id.; see id. ¶ 20.
A NADDIS search “is the practical means by which DEA identifies and locates investigative records across all of [its] offices worldwide.” Id. ¶ 18. To determine whether DEA maintains investigative records about a particular individual and where those records might be located, one “enters into NADDIS a unique search term,” such as an individual's Social Security number or combination of his name and date of birth. Id. ¶ 20. If DEA has responsive records, NADDIS generates “an abstract of information, such as an investigative case number, investigative report number, or other record identifier, linked to the unique search term.” Id. A record identifier, in turn, is “used to locate the records linked to the investigative case number.” Id. The investigative case number is “a means to determine whether potentially responsive records exist and where, across all DEA offices worldwide, those records may be located.” Second Decl. of Angela D. Hertel (ECF No. 25-2, “Second Hertel Decl.”) ¶ 5.
DEA's declarant explained that a NADDIS query using plaintiff's name as a search term yielded one investigative case number and confirmed that plaintiff was the subject of that investigation. First Hertel Decl. ¶ 21; See Second Hertel Decl. ¶¶ 6, 10. Given plaintiff's reference to Rock Island, Illinois, in his FOIA request, DEA staff concluded that records linked to that “investigative case number would be under the custody and control of [DEA's] Omaha Division,” the geographical jurisdiction of which “covers investigations in Nebraska, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa, including the Quad Cities at the Iowa-Illinois border” encompassing Rock Island, Illinois. First Hertel Decl. ¶ 22. “No other investigative case numbers were identified that matched the details of [plaintiff's] requests or where [plaintiff] was the subject.” Second Hertel Decl. ¶ 10.
Omaha Division staff used the investigative case number as a search term to query the Investigative Management Program and Case Tracking system (“IMPACT”), where DEA maintains its official files for all investigative records, which typically include “all investigative reports, forms, affidavits, search warrants, and evidence inventories.” First Hertel Decl. ¶ 23. The declarant explained that “all records associated with an investigation,” including handwritten notes, must “be submitted into IMPACT.” Second Hertel Decl. ¶ 7. The IMPACT search, the declarant stated, was not limited to any specific record plaintiff identified in his FOIA request; rather, the search was “for all records associated with the identified investigative case number . . . in its custody and control.” Id. ¶ 8. North Central Laboratory staff, too, “used the . . . investigative case number to conduct a search of [laboratory] records linked to [it].” First Hertel Decl. ¶ 23; See Second Hertel Decl. ¶ 8.
The Omaha Division and North Central Laboratory searches yielded 157 pages of records linked to the investigative number among which were “reports of investigation; reports of drug and non-drug...
To continue reading
Request your trial