United States District Court, D. Columbia.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
MOSQUERA GAMBOA, Plaintiff, Pro se, ADELANTO, CA.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF U.S. ATTORNEYS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, Defendants: Dionne S. Shy, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S.
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Washington, DC.
OPINION [Dkt. #45]
J. LEON, United States District Judge.
Edgar Mosquera Gamboa (" plaintiff" ) commenced
this action under the Freedom of Information Act ("
FOIA" ), see 5 U.S.C. § 552, seeking
records pertaining to a joint task force investigation by the
Executive Office of the United States Attorneys ("
EOUSA" ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("
FBI" ) (together, " defendants" ), and the
Drug Enforcement Administration (" DEA" ), into
money laundering and cocaine trafficking offenses for which
plaintiff was ultimately convicted. See Compl. [Dkt.
#1]. On August 26, 2014, the Court denied in part
defendants' first Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #26]
on the grounds that: (1) the DEA did not demonstrate that its
search for records responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request
was adequate; (2) the FBI did not demonstrate that
informant(s) provided information under an implied assurance
of confidentiality for purposes of FOIA Exemption 7(D); and
(3) neither the FBI nor the Executive Office for Organized
Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (" OCDETF" )
demonstrated that the withholding of information under FOIA
Exemption 7(F) was appropriate. See generally
Gamboa v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys, 65
F.Supp.3d 157 (D.D.C. 2014). The Court assumes familiarity
with the factual and procedural background of this case and,
in the interest of judicial economy, addresses only the legal
issues now at hand in Defendants' Renewed Motion for
Summary Judgment [Dkt. #45] pertaining to the remaining three
issues. Upon consideration of the parties' pleadings, the
relevant law, and the entire record herein, the Court GRANTS
defendants' Motion and DISMISSES the case.
cases are typically resolved on motions for summary judgment.
See Petit-Frere v. U.S. Attny's Office for
the S. Dist. of Flor., 800 F.Supp.2d 276, 279 (D.D.C.
2011) (citations omitted), aff'd per curiam, No.
11-5285, 2012 WL 4774807, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 19, 2012). A
court will grant summary judgment if " the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In the FOIA context, an agency may meet
its burden solely on the basis of affidavits or declarations,
see Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard,
180 F.3d 321, 326, 336 U.S. App.D.C. 386 (D.C. Cir. 1999), as
long as they " describe the documents and the
justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific
detail, demonstrate that the information withheld logically
falls within the claimed exemption, and are not controverted
by either contrary evidence in the record [or] by evidence of
agency bad faith," Military Audit Project v.
Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738, 211 U.S. App.D.C. 135 (D.C.
Cir. 1981) (footnote omitted).
The Adequacy of the DEA's Search for Responsive
by addressing the adequacy of the DEA's search for
records responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request. " It
is elementary that an agency responding to a FOIA request
must conduct a search reasonably calculated to uncover all
relevant documents, and, if challenged, must demonstrate
beyond material doubt that the search was reasonable."
Truitt v. Dep't of State, 897 F.2d 540, 542, 283
U.S. App.D.C. 86 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (footnotes, brackets, and
quotation marks omitted). Unfortunately for plaintiff, I
conclude that the DEA's search was appropriate.
2010, plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the DEA that read
in relevant part:
" I would like to have the two (2) lab report for the
case # CR-H-82-3
1) Lab report F3806
2) Lab report F3808
Requested information will consist of the dates from 1993- to