Huggans v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys

DARWIN HUGGANS, Plaintiff, v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 19-cv-02587 (EGS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

March 22, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is brought pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552. On August 23, 2019, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Investigations ("FBI"), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF"), the Drug Enforcement Administrative ("DEA"), and the Executive Office of United States Attorneys ("EOUSA"), challenging their final determinations arising from four identical FOIA requests, one sent to each agency. See Compl., ECF No. 1, at 1-2. He seeks a Vaughn index, release of the requested records, a declaration that Defendants are in violation of FOIA, as well as unspecified sanctions and fees. See id. at 8-9.

Currently pending is Defendants' motion for summary judgment, filed on July 1, 2020, ECF No. 15, with accompanying statement of facts, ECF No. 15-1, and memorandum in support ("MSJ Mem."), ECF No.15-2. On November 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition, with its own accompanying statement of facts ("Opp. Stmt."), memorandum in support ("Opp. Mem."), and unsworn declaration ("Opp. Decl."), collectively, ECF No. 19. Defendants filed their reply ("Reply"), ECF No. 20, on November 20, 2020, after which Plaintiff sought leave to file a surreply ("Surreply"), ECF No. 22, with the proposed filing attached thereto, and a motion to correct that surreply, ECF No. 21, both of which were granted. The matter is now fully briefed for consideration. For the reasons stated herein, the motion for summary judgment will be granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Darwin Huggans, was indicted, following a DEA investigation, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. See United States v. Huggans, No. 4:07-cr-00541-CDP-1 (E.D. Mo. filed Sept 13, 2007) at ECF No. 1; MSJ Mem. at 2; Opp. Mem. ¶ 3. That matter culminated in a bench trial held from January through March 2009. See Huggans, No. 4:07-cr-00541-CDP-1 at ECF Nos. 97-118. On March 13, 2009, the trial concluded, and Plaintiff was convicted of (1) conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, (2) attempt to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 5 kilograms of cocaine, and (3) criminal forfeiture, see id. at ECF Nos. 117-18, and was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment, see id. at ECF No. 179.

On December 5, 2018, Plaintiff submitted an identical FOIA request to all four Defendants, requesting any and all records pertaining to Anthony Lamar Stiles, who testified against Plaintiff during his criminal trial. See FBI's Decl. of Michael G. Seidel ("Seidel Decl."), ECF No. 15-3, ¶ 4, Ex. A at ("FOIA Request") at 1-2; DEA's Decl. of Angela Hertel ("Hertel Decl."), ECF No. 15-4, ¶ 7-10, Ex. A at ("FOIA Request") at 1-2; ATF's Decl. of Adam Siple ("Siple Decl.") ECF No. 15-5, ¶ 2-4, Ex. A at ("FOIA Request") at 1-2; EOUSA's Decl. of Natasha Hudgins ("Hudgins Decl."), ECF No. 15-6, ¶ 5-6, Ex. A at ("FOIA Request") at 1-2. He also sought documents including, but not limited to: "any and all history of Mr. Stiles records and actions as an informant at any time before, during, or after he testified on January 21, 2009[,] in open court to present day[,] that he was a Government informant, and should include whether Mr. Stiles was a paid government informant or was working off time for himself or someone else." Compl. at 7; FOIARequest at 2. In furtherance, he contended that, upon information and belief, Stiles had served as government informant in many other cases, and that he desired any material "pertaining to Mr. Stiles being an informant." See id.

Despite having requested information relevant to a third-party, Plaintiff did not provide a certification of identity, evidence of death, or privacy waiver, for Stiles. See Seidel Decl. ¶¶ 4, 17, 23; Siple Decl. ¶ 3; Hertel Decl. ¶¶ 11, 25; Hudgins Decl. ¶¶ 6-7. He instead asserted that "[t]he Government and Mr. Stiles both have admitted in open court that Mr. Stiles is and was a Government informant and by doing so, Mr. Stiles and the Government gave up any and all rights to withhold any and all information pertaining to Mr. Stiles records and actions as a[n] informant for the United States Government." See FOIA Request at 1-2. With each request, Plaintiff included (1) an unauthenticated copy of Stiles's trial testimony in Huggans, No. 4:07-cr-00541-CDP-1, see Compl. at 2; id. at Compl. Appx. A ("Huggans Transcript"); Seidel Ex. A at transcript ("Huggans Transcript"); Siple Ex. A at transcript ("Huggans Transcript"); Hertel Ex. A at transcript ("Huggans Transcript"), and (2) a copy of the opinion rendered in Pickard v. Dep't of Justice, 653 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 2011), see Compl. at 2; id. at Compl. Appx. B (Pickard Opinion); Seidel Ex. A at Pickard Opinion; Siple Ex. A at Pickard Opinion; Hertel Ex. A at Pickard Opinion. During his subsequent appeal of ATF's determinations, Plaintiff seems to have submitted a partial unauthenticated copy of a transcript of a preliminary hearing from United States v. Stiles, No. 4:94-mj-06038 (E.D. Mo. May 2, 1994), see Siple Decl. Ex. C at transcript ("Stiles Transcript"), and a copy of the order of dismissal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(1), entered in that matter on May 23, 1994, see Stiple Ex. C at stipulation ("Stiles Stip.").

Finally, Plaintiff requested a waiver of all processing fees, on the basis that "these records are not for commercial use and the disclosure of this information will contribute significantly tothe public[']s understanding of operations and the activities of the United States Government." See FOIA Request at 2.

FBI'S RESPONSE

On December 24, 2018, FBI issued a letter acknowledging receipt of the FOIA request. Seidel Decl. ¶ 5; Ex. B at FBI determination letter ("FBI Determination"). Therein, FBI issued a "Glomar response," stating that, because Plaintiff had requested information about a third-party, it could neither confirm nor deny the existence of responsive records, and also noted the applicability of FOIA Exemption 6, see 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6) ("Exemption 6"), and Exemption 7(C), see id. at (b)(7)(C) ("Exemption 7(C)"). See Seidel Decl. ¶¶ 5, 11; FBI Determination. It explained that the mere acknowledgement of the existence of such records could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of Stiles's personal privacy and that it would not conduct a search. See id. It further advised that this response was an agency standard, and that there should be no inference as to whether any responsive documents do or not do exist. Last, the FBI indicated that it was closing the request and advised Plaintiff of his appeal rights. Id.

Plaintiff submitted an administrative appeal to the Office of Information Policy ("OIP") on January 7, 2019. Seidel Decl. ¶ 6; Ex. C. In his appeal, Plaintiff again stressed his entitlement to the records because of Stiles's public testimony in Huggans, No. 4:07-cr-00541-CDP-1. See Seidel Ex. C at Plaintiff's FBI appeal letter. On September 9, 2019, OIP affirmed the FBI's determinations. Seidel Decl. ¶ 8; Ex. D at FBI/OIP appeal determination letter.

ATF'S RESPONSE

On February 19, 2019, ATF issued a letter acknowledging the FOIA request and asserting a "categorical denial" pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C). Siple Decl. ¶ 5; Ex. B at ATF determination letter ("ATF Determination"). By categorically denying the request, ATF declinedto undertake a search for records. See id. ATF notified Plaintiff that, because he sought information regarding a third-party, he was required to submit either express authorization and written consent, proof of death of the third party, or a clear demonstration that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the existing privacy interest. See ATF Determination. ATF indicated that if Plaintiff could obtain written consent or provide proof of death, it would conduct a search and, if any documents were retrieved, assess the propriety of release. Finally, it advised Plaintiff of his appeal rights and closed the request. Pursuant to ATF agency standard, it also issued a Glomar response, declining to confirm or deny the existence of any responsive records. See id.

On March 10, 2019, Plaintiff administratively appealed this determination to OIP, again arguing that ATF's refusal was improper because of Stiles's testimony as an informant in Huggans, No. 4:07-cr-00541-CDP-1. See Siple Decl. ¶ 6; Ex. C at Plaintiff's ATF appeal letter. On July 30, 2019, OIP affirmed ATF's determinations. See Siple Decl. ¶ 6; Ex. D at ATF/OIP appeal determination letter.

DEA'S RESPONSE

On February 1, 2019, DEA responded by letter in acknowledgment of Plaintiff's FOIA request. Hertel Decl. ¶ 13-14; Ex. B at DEA determination letter ("DEA Determination"). DEA issued a categorical denial pursuant to Exemption 7(C) and declined to conduct a search for the records sought. Hertzel Decl. ¶¶ 15, 19; DEA Determination. It also notified Plaintiff that, because he sought information regarding a third-party, he was required to submit either express authorization and written consent, proof of death of the third party, or a clear demonstration that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the existing privacy interest. Hertzel Decl. ¶ 15; DEA Determination. Because he failed to do so, it explained that the request constituted an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy pursuant to Exemption (7)(C). Id. It also issued a Glomar response,as agency standard, and declined to confirm or deny the existence of any responsive records. See DEA Determination. Last, it advised Plaintiff of his appeal rights and closed the request. See id.

Plaintiff then appealed this determination to OIP, see Hertel Decl. ¶ 16, and on March 22, 2019, OIP affirmed DEA's determinations, see id. ¶...