Sabet publicly claimed to have insider knowledge that the DEA had not approved the rescheduling proposal before it was made public. In response, Zorn filed his original FOIA lawsuit in December, seeking to uncover any communications between DEA personnel and SAM.
In an amended complaint filed in January, Zorn dismissed the DEA’s claims that it was unaware of any such correspondence as “misplaced.” He pointed to DEA attorneys’ prehearing statements before the agency’s tribunal, where they denied improper contact between SAM and the DEA’s counsel of record but remained silent on whether other DEA officials had engaged in such communications.
According to Zorn, this response suggests that someone in the DEA Chief Counsel’s Office likely investigated the issue and identified those involved in ex parte discussions.
“DEA’s FOIA Office could feasibly (and easily) become aware of the identities of DEA employees engaged in ex parte contacts by simply asking the attorneys that filed DEA’s submission in the rescheduling proceeding who also work in DEA Chief Counsel’s Office,” Zorn wrote in his complaint.
