Case Detail
Case Title | Rodriguez v. U.S. Dept. of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration FOI Records Management | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | Southern District of Ohio | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Columbus | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 2:2014cv00173 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2014-02-18 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2015-06-29 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge George C Smith | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | Jose Rodriguez | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Jose Rodriquez, a state prisoner in Ohio, made a request to the Justice Department for copies of audio or videotapes related to him that were taken in Woods County, Ohio in 2007. The Justice Department indicated it was willing to release some of the records, but not all of them. Rodriquez appealed to the Office of Information Policy, which upheld the original decision. Rodriquez then filed suit.Jose Rodriquez, a state prisoner in Ohio, made a request to the Justice Department for copies of audio or videotapes related to him that were taken in Woods County, Ohio in 2007. The Justice Department indicated it was willing to release some of the records, but not all of them. Rodriquez appealed to the Office of Information Policy, which upheld the original decision. Rodriquez then filed suit. Complaint issues: in camera inspection, de novo review, disclosure of records, attorney's fees, statutory damages under the Privacy Actin camera inspection, de novo review, disclosure of records, attorney's fees, statutory damages under the Privacy Act | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | U.S. Dept. of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration FOI Records Management | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [22] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Ohio has ruled that the DEA conducted an adequate search for exhibits connected to Jose Rodriguez's conviction for drug trafficking and properly withheld one exhibit under Exemption 7(D) (confidential sources). Rodriguez claimed the exhibits had been altered at the time of trial and requested any records in the possession of DEA. After a search, DEA located one exhibit, but denied Rodiguez's request based on several subparts of Exemption 7. Both exhibits recorded conversations that included a confidential source and law enforcement officers in which an accomplice of Rodriguez offered to sell drugs. The court found that the existing recording was covered by Exemption 7(D). The court noted that "plaintiff alleges no facts demonstrating that [the remaining exhibit] was ever played at his trial." The court added that "there is no question of material fact that [the remaining exhibit] contains information provided by a confidential informant."
Issues: Exemption 7(D) - Confidential sources, Public domain | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|