Case Detail
| Case Title | THELEN v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2015cv00102 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2015-01-21 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2016-03-14 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Beryl A. Howell | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | PATRICK THELEN | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Patrick Thelen, a federal prisoner, submitted a FOIA request to EOUSA for records concerning himself. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and asked for verification of identity. After providing some identifying information, Thelen complained that EOUSA was obstructing his request and OIP agreed that EOUSA should process the request. Thelen then requested expedited processing. After hearing nothing further from the agency, Thelen filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [23] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Beryl Howell has ruled that EOUSA conducted an adequate search for records pertaining to the conviction of Patrick Thelen and properly withheld nearly half of the responsive records under Exemption 3 (other statutes), Exemption 5 (privileges), and Exemption 7 (law enforcement records). Thelen had been tried and convicted in the Eastern District of Michigan and EOUSA focused its search at the U.S. Attorney's Office there. Thelen challenged the search by indicating EOUSA had not located lab reports analyzing the drugs found at his residence. Howell noted that "neither the EOUSA's failure to produce particular documents nor the plaintiff's 'mere speculation that as yet uncovered documents might exist,' undermines the adequacy of the EOUSA's search. The plaintiff's challenge pertains only to the results of the EOUSA's search, and such an assertion alone does not overcome the defendant's showing on summary judgment." The agency had withheld grand jury transcripts under Rule 6(e) on grand jury secrecy. Thelen argued that because grand jury materials were shared with him and his defense counsel and because the police detective who testified at his trial had also testified before the grand jury the grand jury proceedings had become part of the public domain. Howell disagreed, pointing out that "disclosure of grand jury materials to the plaintiff and his defense counsel in the context of the criminal proceedings does not amount to release of information into the public domain. The fact that the same witness testified before the grand jury and at trial does not establish that specific information withheld by the EOUSA in this FOIA action duplicates information that already has made its way into the public domain via [the detective's] trial testimony." Noting that Thelen had not challenged the Exemption 5 withholdings, Howell indicated that they qualified for protection under both the deliberative process privilege and the attorney work-product privilege. Howell then found the remaining claims made under various subparts of Exemption 7 were appropriate. She rejected Thelen's claim that Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records) did not apply because the information had become public during his trial for the same reasons she had rejected his claims pertaining to grand jury secrecy.
Issues: Exemption 3 - Limited agency discretion, Exemption 5 - Privileges, Exemption 7 - Law enforcement records | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
