, has raised a meritorious defense that the DEA's justification for refusing even to confirm the file's existence has been undermined by prior public disclosure." Lastly, as to DEA's claim that "the case is moot because has already received all the relief to which he is entitled," namely, confirmation of the file's existence, the D.C.
Circuit concludes that "ven if later in litigation the DEA showed legitimate grounds to withhold every document in NADDIS file. Circuit dismisses DEA's argument that plaintiff does not present an adequate defense because "public information showing the existence of an investigatory file in name does not vitiate right under FOIA exemption 7(C) to withhold the contents of that file." Rather, the D.C.
#Sample motion for reconsideration trial
Circuit determines that "a federal prosecutor's decision to release information at trial is enough to trigger the public domain exception where the FOIA request is directed to another component within the Department of Justice." Furthermore, the D.C. Circuit finds that "the cases the DEA cites in which has allowed Glomar responses to stand despite prior public disclosure implicated a concern not present here: forcing one agency to adopt another's official disclosure of information common to both." The D.C. Attorney released documents, not the DEA." To the contrary, the D.C. Circuit rejects DEA's argument that the documents produced by plaintiff would not present a meritorious defense because "its Glomar response would still be valid a U.S.
Circuit notes that if certain records, which were referenced in the documents filed in the instant case, "exist as described and are part of a public court record, they would be enough for the requisite 'hint of a suggestion' that could prove at trial the specific information he seeks has already been disclosed." The court comments that "lthough would presumably need to produce the actual documents at trial, at this juncture requires much less." was assigned is already in the public domain, they at least establish a dispute over this material fact" and "howing a meritorious defense under Rule 60(b) requires nothing more." Additionally, the D.C.
Circuit determines that "lthough these unauthenticated documents cannot prove that the identity of the person to whom NADDIS No. Circuit finds that here plaintiff proffered evidence that publicly linked the subject of the request to a specific investigatory file, which brings into question the propriety of DEA's Glomar response. must consider underlying legal issues de novo." In terms of determining whether plaintiff has presented a meritorious defense, the court notes that he "need only provide 'reason to believe that vacating the judgment will not be an empty exercise or a futile gesture.'" The D.C. Circuit notes that "lthough review a district court's denial of a Rule60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. Circuit holds that plaintiff "has raised a meritorious defense, which entitles him to have the district court look again at his motion, but not necessarily grant it." At the outset, the D.C. Holding: Reversing the district court's denial of plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion, and remanding to the district court for further proceedings.
0 kommentar(er)
