Chavis v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

MICHAEL R. CHAVIS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00638 (TNM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

April 28, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Michael Chavis is an investigator helping Ricardo Sanchez, Jr., challenge his murder conviction. Chavis submitted a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request seeking records on Sanchez and his co-defendants in connection with Sanchez's legal challenges. Chavis sues the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Department of Justice (collectively, the "Government"), challenging the DEA's decision to redact information and withhold documents under various FOIA exemptions that protect privacy and law enforcement interests.

The parties cross-move for summary judgment. They dispute whether the DEA adequately searched for records responsive to the FOIA request, properly explained its decisions to withhold material under various FOIA exemptions, and complied with its obligation to release all reasonably segregable material. For the following reasons, the Court will deny Chavis's summary judgment motion and grant the Government's motion.

I.

Ricardo Sanchez, Jr. received life and death sentences for the murders of the Escobedo family, including three- and four-year-old children. See United States v. Troya, 733 F.3d 1125, 1129-30 (11th Cir. 2013); Decl. of Michael Chavis ("Chavis Decl.") ¶¶ 3-4, ECF No. 14-1.¹ "These murders took place to protect a large-scale drug trafficking ring involving drugs, guns and extensive violence." Troya, 733 F.3d at 1130. Sanchez continues to challenge his conviction. Chavis Decl. ¶ 5. He argues in part that the prosecution "failed to disclose exculpatory and impeachment material pursuant to its obligation." Id.

The DEA is an agency within the DOJ tasked with enforcing federal drug laws and regulations in the United States. See Decl. of Angela D. Hertel ("Hertel Decl.") ¶ 5, ECF No. 12-1. "Several DEA agents interviewed witnesses and conducted [an] investigation into [Sanchez's] charged offenses." Chavis Decl. ¶ 6. The lead DEA agent also "coordinated and directed the investigation by several federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies." Id.

Michael Chavis is an investigator with the Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee, which represents Sanchez in his post-conviction proceedings. See Defs.' Statement of Material Facts Not in Genuine Dispute ("Defs.' SOMF") ¶ 1, ECF No. 10-2; Chavis Decl.¶¶ 1-2.² Chavis submitted a FOIA request on behalf of Sanchez to the DEA. See Defs.' SOMF ¶ 2; Chavis Decl. ¶ 2.

The FOIA request sought "all public documents, files, records, etc. pertaining to any investigation, arrest, indictment, conviction, sentencing, incarceration, and/or parole of" Sanchez and his co-defendants.³ Defs.' SOMF ¶ 2; Pl.'s Combined Opp'n & Cross-Mot. Summ. J. ("Pl.'s Cross-Mot.") Ex. B, ECF No. 14-2. The DEA responded that it "required either a release authorization or proof of death for each co-defendant in order to release their information." Defs.' SOMF ¶ 3; Pl.'s Cross-Mot. Ex. C, ECF No. 14-3. It explained that "without such consent or an overriding public interest, those records were categorically exempt from disclosure, and DEA was not required to conduct a search for the requested records." Defs.' SOMF ¶ 4. Chavis provided a Certification of Identity for Sanchez, but he did not submit arelease authorization or proof of death for any of the co-defendants. Id. ¶¶ 5-6; Pl.'s Cross-Mot. Ex. D, ECF No. 14-4.

The DEA maintains all criminal enforcement investigative records in its Investigative Reporting and Filing System ("IRFS"). Defs.' SOMF ¶ 21. The IRFS includes all "DEA law enforcement intelligence and investigative information maintained on an individual." Id. ¶ 22. It also includes "[r]ecords from other DEA record systems that are related to an individual's involvement in, or association with, a DEA intelligence operation or civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation." Id. ¶ 23. The DEA relies on the Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Information System ("NADDIS")—an electronic data index—to identify records in IRFS across all DEA offices. Id. ¶¶ 24-25. The DEA can input into NADDIS an individual's name, social security number, or birthdate to help locate records within IRFS. Id. ¶¶ 26-27. "A search of IRFS using NADDIS is a worldwide search for DEA records, including records maintained at field offices, because intelligence and investigative records generated across all DEA offices are indexed into NADDIS." Id. ¶ 30.

In response to Chavis's FOIA request, the DEA conducted a NADDIS search using Sanchez's name and birthdate to identify records in IRFS. Id. ¶ 31. This search identified two files related to Sanchez. Id. ¶ 32. DEA-Miami searched these files and forwarded the records for processing. Id. ¶ 35. The DEA did not search for records on Sanchez's co-defendants "because [Sanchez] did not provide the necessary documentation." Hertel Decl. ¶ 27.

The DEA ultimately withheld 229 pages and released 107 pages to Chavis. Defs.' SOMF ¶¶ 10, 13. It withheld information and documents under FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F). Id. ¶ 16. Chavis does not contest 94 redacted pages, and he withdrew "objections related to information excluded because it constituted an unwarranted invasion of [one of the co-defendant's] privacy" and "[Chavis's] office had not submitted the necessary waiver." Id. ¶¶ 19-20.

The DEA provided a Vaughn index that identifies the FOIA exemptions under which "responsive records were withheld; describes the content of the documents to the extent possible; and specifies the bases for the invoked exemptions." Id. ¶ 37; see also Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. ("Defs.' Mot.") Ex. I, ECF No. 10-11. It also submitted a declaration from Angela Hertel—the Unit Chief for DEA's FOIA Privacy Act Unit—to explain the DEA's search process and FOIA withholdings. See Hertel Decl.

Chavis sues the Government for wrongfully withholding records (Counts I and III) and for failing to conduct a reasonable search (Counts II and IV) under FOIA and the Privacy Act of 1974. See Compl. ¶¶ 20-55, ECF No. 1.

Both parties cross-move for summary judgment. Their motions are ripe for disposition.⁴

II.

To succeed at summary judgment, the moving party must show 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). The party seeking summary judgment has the initial burden to identify those portions of the record that show the lack of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once that burden is met, the non-moving party must "designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 324 (cleaned up). The Court construes the evidence "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Brubaker v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 482 F.3d 586, 588 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

"[T]he vast majority of FOIA cases can be resolved on summary judgment." Brayton v. Off. of the U.S. Trade Representative, 641 F.3d 521, 527 (D.C. Cir. 2011). At summary judgment, the "agency must show beyond material doubt [] that it has conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents." Weisberg v. DOJ, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983). An agency withholding records under a FOIA exemption "bears the burden of proving the applicability of [the] claimed exemptions." ACLU v. DOD, 628 F.3d 612, 619 (D.C. Cir. 2011). "[A]n agency's justification for invoking a FOIA exemption is sufficient if it appears logical or plausible." Id. (cleaned up). "To successfully challenge an agency's showing that it complied with the FOIA, the plaintiff must come forward with 'specific facts' demonstrating that there is a genuine issue with respect to whether the agency has improperly withheld extant agency records." Span v. DOJ, 696 F. Supp. 2d 113, 119 (D.D.C. 2010).

The withholding agency may rely on declarations, a Vaughn index, or both to meet its burden. See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F.3d 141, 146 (D.C. Cir. 2006). And the Court affords this evidence a "presumption of good faith." SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1991).

III.

The FOIA statute "mandates the disclosure of documents held by a federal agency unless the documents fall within one of nine enumerated exemptions." U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. v. Sierra Club, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 777, 785 (2021). For FOIA requests seeking law enforcement records—like those here—there are several exemptions at play. Not surprisingly, FOIA's default preference for government transparency is preempted by concerns about disclosing sensitive information in the law enforcement arena. See Machado Amadis v. DOJ, 388 F. Supp. 3d 1, 15(D.D.C. 2019), aff'd, 971 F.3d 364 (D.C. Cir. 2020) ("When a law enforcement agency invokes Exemption 7, it warrants greater deference than do like claims by other agencies." (cleaned up)).

"Exemption 7 protects from disclosure 'records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes,' but only to the extent that the production of such records would cause an enumerated harm." Wilson v. DEA, 414 F. Supp. 2d 5, 13 (D.D.C. 2006) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)). This law enforcement exemption broadly covers, among other things, (i) information that "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," (Exemption 7(C))⁵; (ii) information that "could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source" or "information furnished by a confidential source," (Exemption 7(D)); (iii) information that "would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law," (Exemption 7(E)); and (iv) information that "could...