UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GANNETT SATELLITE INFORMATION NETWORK, LLC, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 22-cv-475 (BAH) v. Judge Beryl A. Howell U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Gannett Satellite Information Network, d/b/a USA Today, filed this lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) challenging the agency’s response to plaintiff’s request, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for data regarding “individual-level information on the deaths of incarcerated people in the custody of local jails, state prisons, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons,” Pl.’s Mem. in Supp. of Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. & Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pl.’s Mem.”) at 1, ECF No. 13-1, which data is collected by a DOJ component in compliance with the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 (“DCRA”), Pub. L. No. 113-242, 128 Stat. 2860 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 34 U.S.C. and 14 U.S.C.). After a search uncovered over 230,000 pages of documents potentially responsive to plaintiff’s FOIA request, defendant invoked FOIA Exemption 3, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3), to withhold the release of all those materials under the confidentiality provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (“Crime Control Act”), 34 U.S.C. § 10231. As a result, the key question in this dispute, one of first impression in this Circuit, is whether the text of the Crime Control Act’s confidentiality provision exempts disclosure of the requested 1 information under FOIA Exemption 3. In their cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties offer divergent interpretations of the statute that favor their positions. For the reasons explained below, plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment, Pl.’s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 13, is granted and defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 12, is denied. I. BACKGROUND The factual background and procedural history relevant to the pending motion are described below. A. Statutory Context The DCRA was originally enacted in 2000 and, after expiration in 2006, reauthorized in 2014. See infra n.3. This law aims to “encourage States to report to the Attorney General certain information regarding the deaths of individuals in the custody of law enforcement agencies.” Pub. L. No. 113-242, 128 Stat. 2860 (2014). To fulfill that goal, the DCRA requires certain states and federal law enforcement agencies to report to the Attorney General information regarding the death of “any person who is detained, under arrest, or is in the process of being arrested, is en route to be incarcerated, or is incarcerated” at a local or state jail, prison, boot camp, contract facility, or other correctional facility, including juvenile facilities. See DCRA § 2(a), 128 Stat. at 2861 (outlining state reporting requirements); accord 34 U.S.C. 60105(a) (codification of such state requirements); see also DCRA § 3(a), 128 Stat. at 2861 (outlining federal law enforcement reporting requirements); 18 U.S.C. § 4001 note (codification of such federal requirements). Both states and federal agencies must include “at a minimum” in their disclosures …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals