Opinion ID: 774052
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rugiero's FOIA Requests

Text: 4 The complaint in this case identifies the eleven components from which Rugiero requested records in separate counts. The following defendants figure prominently in the discussion in this appeal: the Executive Office of the United States Attorneys (EOUSA) named in Count IV; the United States Secret Service (USSS); the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); the Tax Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ Tax); and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) named in Count XI. 5 Rugiero requested, pursuant to the FOIA, a copy of any and all records, documents and any type of information that your agency has or had in its possession that is in any way connected to, related to or even remote [sic] in reference to my name. Each defendant responded to the request by searching its records, which resulted in production of over one thousand pages of responsive documents in total, with the vast majority withheld in full or in part pursuant to claims of statutory exemption under the Act. Three defendants, the USSS, IRS, and DOJ Tax, located no responsive documents. 6 The EOUSA, United States Marshals Service, and the DEA each conducted additional searches either at the administrative appeals level or in response to this suit and identified new documents subject to disclosure in response to Rugiero's FOIA request. The IRS asked Rugiero to narrow the scope of his request, and he identified all Criminal Investigation Division records that may have been compiled between the years 1984 and 1993 inclusive as the object of his FOIA query. 7 During the district court proceedings, DOJ Tax maintained that it never received Rugiero's FOIA request. Rugiero, 35 F. Supp. 2d at 986. When Rugiero produced a copy of it, however, the district court ordered DOJ Tax to process the request immediately. Id. Once DOJ Tax complied, the district court granted the division's motion for summary judgment. 8 Also, Rugiero contested the EOUSA's withholding of several specific documents. Document 2 is a letter from the federal prosecutor in Rugiero's criminal case to LaRene regarding intimidating conduct and threats directed at jurors and other third parties associated with Rugiero's criminal trial. Because the document had already been disclosed to Rugiero's defense counsel, the district court ordered the EOUSA to release the document in its entirety to Rugiero, id. at 984, though the court later modified this order to redact the names of jurors and third parties. The district judge conducted an in camerareview of Document 3, a letter from a federal prosecutor to an FBI agent regarding jury tampering in Rugiero's criminal case, Document 5, a document on which the United States Probation Department relied in preparing Rugiero's presentence report, and Documents 9 and 10, allegedly containing correspondence between a federal prosecutor and third parties regarding the investigation of LaRene. Id. at 984-85. Upon review, the court declined to order the EOUSA to produce any of these documents. Id.