RIOS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 73

MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying the final order issued separately this day. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/8/2021.(psu1)

Case 1:15-cv-01183-TSC Document 73 Filed 02/08/21 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ALEX RIOS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 15-cv-1183-TSC

MEMORANDUM OPINION
In what remains of this FOIA case, the Drug Enforcement Administration
(“DEA”) has renewed its motion for summary judgment with regard to certain
redactions under FOIA Exemption 7(E), ECF No. 67. See Mem. Op. II, ECF No. 64
(granting the bulk of relief to Defendant). 1 For the following reasons, Defendant’s
motion will be GRANTED.
The court could not fully resolve Defendant’s Exemption 7(E) claim because the
declarant’s explanation for withholding material beyond G-DEP and NADDIS
information lacked specificity. See Mem. Op. II at 16-17 (finding no correlation shown
between certain redacted material and the claimed exemption). In support of the instant
motion, Defendant proffers the Declaration of Angela D. Hertel, ECF 67-1, and three
revised Vaughn indices, ECF Nos. 67-2, 67-3, 67-4, all of which satisfactorily address
the court’s concerns. Hertel states, and the indices show, that an “overwhelming

1

The court’s first Memorandum Opinion, ECF No. 41, rejected Defendant’s argument
to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
1

Case 1:15-cv-01183-TSC Document 73 Filed 02/08/21 Page 2 of 3

number” of redactions were DEA file numbers that “relate solely to internal DEA
practices and can only be legitimately utilized by agency personnel functioning
within the agency.” Hertel Decl. ¶¶ 11, 16. The file numbers “reveal the specific DEA
office that initiated the investigation, the year the investigation was established, and the
total number of cases initiated by the DEA office in a particular fiscal year.” Id. ¶ 16.
If disclosed, Hertel explains, such information could reveal “how an agency’s law
enforcement databases work and render[ ] them more vulnerable to manipulation.” Id. ¶
16. In addition, DEA applied Exemption 7(E) “to other specific numbers and codes that
could lead to discovery and circumvention of the law by drug violators,” including “a
National Drug Pointer Index (“NDPIX”) number; codes from the National Crime
Information Center (“NCIC”); and Office and Sub-Office codes.” Id. ¶ 17. Further,
DEA withheld “certain information and material that would reveal sensitive, non-public
references to the DEA’s Agents’ Manual,” including “quantitative and qualitative drug
classification criteria” and “internal drug violator codes . . . used in the formulation of
the G-DEP number.” Id. ¶ 18. Finally, DEA redacted operation code names, which if
disclosed “could provide insight into the actual operation, which criminals could use to
develop countermeasures to circumvent future operations.” Id.
Plaintiff’s opposition, ECF No. 70, raises no materially factual dispute, and
Defendant has satisfied the “relatively low bar” the D.C. Circuit has set for an agency
to justify its withholdings under Exemption 7(E). Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37, 42
(D.C. Cir. 2011). In addition, the court now finds from the Vaughn indices and
declarations that Defendant has released all reasonably segregable non-exempt

2

Case 1:15-cv-01183-TSC Document 73 Filed 02/08/21 Page 3 of 3

information. See Second Decl. of Katherine L. Myrick ¶¶ 70-71, ECF No. 58-2
(attesting to the agency’s review of records for segregability).
Defendant, having shown its full compliance with FOIA, is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. A corresponding order will issue separately.

Date: February 8, 2021

Tanya S. Chutkan

TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge

3