United States District Court, District of Columbia
DURRELL K. JACKSON, Plaintiff,
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, Defendant.
N. McFadden United States District Judge
K. Jackson filed this case under the Freedom of Information
Act (“FOIA”) to obtain records maintained by the
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
(“EOUSA”). EOUSA has moved for summary judgment.
See ECF No. 14. For the reasons discussed below, the
Court will grant the motion.
January 2015, Mr. Jackson submitted a FOIA request to EOUSA
for information relating to his criminal case in the Northern
District of Iowa. He sought:
1. [A]ll search warrants, evidence and any misc. items in
relations to package that . . . went to Waterloo, Iowa, at
approximately 10:07am on June 29, 2000 with package tracking
no. 10897-1870110001107. All evidence include search
warrant(s), record(s) (official and/or unofficial),
memorandum(s), jencks [sic] material(s), note(s), electronic
messages & bulletin board(s), telephonic recording(s),
any telecommunication(s) (oral and/or written), witnesse(es)
[sic], computer(s) and all attachment internal & external
in relation to computers, e.g., harddrives, thumbdrives,
floppy disk(s), etc., internet and/or intranet.
2. All information requested above pertaining to search
warrants, are not limited to (State District Attorney(s) and
U.S. Attorney(s). The evidence are [sic] requested to
Agencies, Co-Agencies, corporations, companies, partnerships,
and anyone associated to this case pertaining to search
warrant mentioned above.
3. Any evidence and/or attachments issued on or about June
29-30, 2000, related to UPS parcel no. 1 0897-1 870110001107,
also affidavit sworn by UPS business manager Timothy Jochium
. . . .
Smith Decl., Ex. 1 at 1. EOUSA assigned the matter a tracking
number and forwarded the request to the United States
Attorney's Office for the District of Iowa
(“USAO”). Smith Decl. ¶ 4.
Nash, the USAO's FOIA Coordinator, found files for Mr.
Jackson's criminal case and a related civil case.
Id. ¶ 5. Although she did not locate the search
warrant itself, Ms. Nash found “Government Exhibit 10,
which consisted of subsidiary exhibits [10A through 10G]
comprising the UPS package, contents, and related
documents.” Id. ¶ 5.b. She also found
“a facsimile transmission from an Iowa state drug task
force [containing] a laboratory receipt and laboratory report
for cocaine shipped inside the UPS package.”
Id. ¶ 5.c.
responsive records totaled 93 pages, 38 of which were
“copies of public court records maintained in the USAO
criminal case file.” Id. ¶ 6. Of the
remaining 55 pages, 49 were photocopies of Government Exhibit
10, four were the fax described above, and two were the
“affidavit of a UPS employee that is a duplicate of a
part of Government Exhibit 10G.” Id. Ms. Nash
sent these 93 pages to EOUSA. Id. ¶ 5.
Jackson's criminal case was investigated and prosecuted
by the USAO and other federal, state, and local law
enforcement organizations as part of the Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) program. Id. ¶
8. EOUSA referred the non-public pages of records to OCDETF.
The Task Force returned the records to EOUSA when it
determined that they “were USAO records rather than
OCDETF records.” Id. ¶¶ 9, 17.
then sent Mr. Jackson 91 of the 93 responsive pages.
Id. ¶ 19. The production included 38 pages of
public records. Id. EOUSA released 43 of the
remaining pages in full, released 10 pages in part, and
withheld two pages in full because they were duplicates of
the pages released in part. Id. The agency relied on
FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to redact personally identifying
information about third parties from the 10 partially
released pages. Supp. Smith Decl. ¶ 1.
typically resolve FOIA cases on motions for summary judgment.
See Brayton v. Office of the U.S. Trade Rep., 641
F.3d 521, 527 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is
appropriate 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 a FOIA case, the agency must show that there is no
genuine issue of material fact about its compliance with
FOIA's requirements. See Steinberg v. U.S. Dep't
of Justice, 23 F.3d 548, 551 (D.C. Cir. 1994). An agency
may prevail based only on a supporting declaration.
Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321,
326 (D.C. Cir. 1999). To do so, the agency must
“describe the documents and the justifications for
nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail, demonstrate
that the information withheld logically falls within the