Case Detail
| Case Title | WREN v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2016cv02234 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2016-11-09 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | Open | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Amy Berman Jackson | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | DAJUAN LAMARR WREN | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Dajuan Lamarr Wrenn, a federal prisoner, submitted a FOIA request to the DEA for records on a DEA agent involved in the investigation of Wren. The agency redacted information under Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). Wren filed an administrative appeal to the Office of Information Policy. OIP upheld the agency's denial. Wren then filed suit. Complaint issues: Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [23] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Amy Berman Jackson has ruled that although DEA's Glomar response to pro se prison litigator Dajuan Wren's request for records concerning Special Agent Bryan Satori was hasty considering the existence of court transcripts in which Satori testified to several of the items involved in Wren's request, the agency properly responded to Wren's request for a list of cases in which Satori had testified by explaining that it had no ability to search for a list of cases, meaning that Wren was not entitled to costs for his suit against the agency. In response to Wren's request for records about Sartori, the agency issued a Glomar response neither confirming nor denying the existence of records. Wren appealed to OIP, which upheld the DEA's Glomar response. Wren then filed suit and attached copies of the transcript from his trial in which Sartori testified about various aspects of his employment. As a result, the agency agreed to provide that information, but continued to tell Wren that it had no ability to create a list of cases in which Sartori has testified. Wren did not challenge DEA's response, but he filed a motion for attorney's fees, arguing that bringing the suit had forced the agency to provide the information. Jackson sided with the agency, noting that "there is no database where that information would be found and the DEA is not required to undertake research in response to a FOIA request." Turning to the issue of fees, Jackson pointed out that "while it is true that plaintiff obtained relief in this lawsuit when defendants unilaterally changed their position and produced information, the Court questions whether one can characterize plaintiff's attempt to probe the veracity of the Special Agent's testimony about his own background and credentials as a 'not insubstantial' claim." She observed that DEA's initial inclination that Sartori's employment information was protected by Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records) "may not have been fully justified, because the Special Agent testified in open court, and there is a transcript of those proceedings," but added that "the government's argument is sufficiently 'colorable'" enough to be considered reasonable without further evidence.
Issues: Determination - Glomar response, Litigation - Recovery of Costs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
