UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GRISELLE MARINO, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 06-1255 (TJK) DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION In this case brought under the Freedom of Information Act, Plaintiff Griselle Marino seeks documents related to a witness who testified against her deceased spouse at his trial, at which he was convicted on federal drug charges. The parties have cross-moved for summary judgment. For the reasons explained below, Marino’s motion for summary judgment will be denied, and Defendant’s cross-motion will be granted. Background This suit concerns a FOIA request submitted in 2004 by Carlos Marino, which sought records connected to an individual, Everth Lopez, who testified at his criminal trial. 1 ECF No. 95 at 2. Carlos Marino was ultimately convicted. Id. In his FOIA request, he asked the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) for “a copy of all documents indexed under No. 3049901 of the Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Information System (“NADDIS”). I am only requesting information that is already public information or was required to be made public in public trials . . . .” ECF No. 136 ¶ 1. NADDIS numbers are unique numbers assigned to individuals in the 1 Following Carlos Marino’s death, Griselle Marino was substituted as Plaintiff in December 2013. ECF No. 89. DEA’s database for various reasons, e.g., because the person is a subject of an investigation, defendant, witness, confidential source, victim, or family member. ECF No. 136-2 (“Myrick Decl.”) ¶ 9. Carlos Marino suspected that No. 3049901 was associated with Lopez. ECF No. 95 at 6. In response to the request, the DEA issued what is known as a Glomar response, stating it could neither confirm nor deny the existence of the requested records because NADDIS No. 3049901 was linked to a third party. Thus, according to the DEA, there would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy unless it was provided proof of the third party’s death or a notarized privacy waiver. ECF No. 136 ¶ 3; Myrick Decl. ¶ 15. As a result, the DEA did not search for any documents. Myrick Decl. ¶ 18. Carlos Marino filed this case in 2006, and the DEA maintained its Glomar response until 2013. ECF No. 136 ¶ 4; Myrick Decl. ¶ 15. Ultimately the DEA withdrew that response and conducted a search, but one limited to documents that had been made public. ECF No. 95 at 10, 23. The DEA argued that its search was reasonable based on the language of the request, and that even if the request were interpreted more broadly, all other documents could be “categorically” withheld under Exemption 7(C), which protects against “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” ECF No. 65 at 16. But Judge Kessler, to whom this case was previously assigned, rejected the DEA’s approach and ordered it to search for all documents indexed to NADDIS No. 3049901, no matter whether they were made public or required to be made public at the related trials. ECF No. 95 at 23–24. Although the DEA asserted …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals