Case Detail
| Case Title | GORDON v. COURTER et al | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2014cv01382 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2014-08-13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2015-07-31 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | JUAN GORDON | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Juan Gordon, a federal prisoner, submitted a FOIA request to the Criminal Division of the Justice Department for records pertaining to the authorization for wiretaps of his phone. The Criminal Division acknowledged receipt of his request and told him that any responsive records would be exempt. He then appealed the Criminal Division's denial, which was upheld by the Office of Information Policy. Gordon then filed suit. Complaint issues: Exemption 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | KENNETH COURTER CHIEF OF THE FOIA/PA UNIT, sued in his individual and official capacities | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | SEAN R. O'NEILL DIRECTOR OF THE OIP, OIP CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, sued in his individual and official capacities | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [21] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has ruled that the Justice Department conducted an adequate search for records approving wiretaps for phones of several individuals involved in an investigation of Juan Gordon for drug-related charges. Gordon made a FOIA request to DOJ's Criminal Division for memoranda pertaining to the approval of the wiretaps. The Criminal Division initially invoked Exemption 3 (other statutes), citing the wiretap provisions of Title III. Gordon appealed the decision to OIP, which upheld the denial, but cited Exemption 5 (privileges) and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records) instead. Gordon filed suit and the agency conducted several database searchesâ€"a database used to track federal prosecutors' requests for permission to apply for wiretaps and the archived email system of the Criminal Division's Information Technology departmentâ€"releasing 420 pages and withholding 900 pages. Gordon challenged the agency's search, claiming the agency should have searched the databases before he filed suit. Kollar-Kotelly noted that "while Plaintiff is correct that the agency violated FOIA by failing to conduct a search until after the suit was filed, that result has no legal consequences in this case. . .While the delay means that the agency may not raise an exhaustion defense, the agency has not done so here." Gordon argued the agency should have searched databases maintained by the FBI and EOUSA. But Kollar-Kotelly pointed out that "Plaintiff, however, submitted his original FOIA request only to the Criminal Divisionâ€"and not to the FBI or EOUSA. . .Accordingly, because the above databases are not within the Criminal Division's control, Plaintiff may not seek relief regarding searchesâ€"or the lack thereforeâ€"of those other databases in this action." The agency had claimed most of the withheld records fell under the attorney work-product privilege. Kollar-Kotelly agreed, observing that "these types of documents constitute attorney work-product, and their disclosure would risk putting DOJ's lawyers' thought processes and strategy on public display. Indeed, other courts in this district have concluded that wiretap memoranda and other intra-agency discussions regarding wiretapping were protected as attorney work-product. The Court notes that, while the second and third categories of documentsâ€"electronic notices confirming receipt of the Title III applicationâ€"may appear to have a quasi-administrative character, they are still records compiled in anticipation of a specific criminal prosecution, and courts in this District have held that the work product exemption protects such records." As to the redactions made under Exemption 7(C), Kollar-Kotelly indicated that "plaintiff is correct, however, that Exemption 7(C) would likely only apply to the names and personal information of the government employees." Considering the segregability of claimed personal information, she noted that "because the Court finds that all of the records at issue were properly withheld as work product pursuant to Exemption 5, no further segregability analysis is necessary, and the Court concludes that the agency fulfilled its segregability obligations." Gordon argued the agency had failed to consider the disclosability of the records in light of his Privacy Act request. Kollar-Kotelly observed that "while Defendants state in their brief that the email archive is a system of records, nothing in [its] affidavit or elsewhere in the record suggests that the email archive is, in fact, a system of records subject to the disclosure provisions of the Privacy Act. Moreover, courts within this District have consistently held that similar email archives are not 'systems of records' under the Privacy Act because they are not indexed by personal identifier."
Issues: Adequacy - Search | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
