id
stringlengths 36
36
| text
stringlengths 1
400
| source
stringclasses 10
values |
|---|---|---|
0fc86bfe-3810-41ff-9726-27392ef99f0a | .......... 21 D. Facts Related to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions ........................................................ 22 E. Procedural History ............................................................................................................. 26 II. Legal Standards .................................................................................................................. | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
e6ec14cb-9fe6-45ba-baa0-15adb503aaf6 | ... 28 A. FOIA .................................................................................................................................. 28 B. Summary Judgment ........................................................................................................... 31 C. Leave to File Amended Complaint ................................................................................... | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
1ac46d42-abe1-4c0b-9d71-8c8dcf5b5cce | . 32 III. Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 33 A. Motion for Leave to Amend .............................................................................................. 33 B. Motion for Sanctions................................................................................................... | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
20e0c166-4863-4fb0-8d7d-2050563e92e3 | ....... 36 C. Policies or Practices ........................................................................................................... 38 1. Assignment of Rights Policy .......................................................................................... 38 2. Document-Level Exemption Policy ............................................................................... 58 D | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
4d08c5a5-68a4-4a1e-9f61-4301487e7b2e | . Adequacy of Search Efforts ............................................................................................... 62 4 1. Count Eighteen in No. 11-444: January 26, 2011 FOIA Request to the CIA ................ 62 2. Count Twenty in No. 11-444: September 25, 2009 FOIA Request to the CIA ............. 65 3. Count Nine in No. 11-445: February 6, 2010 FOIA Request to the State Department | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
1d009aa5-d0a9-41c2-abfe-32634e59bc4c | . 67 4. Count Ten in No. 11-445: February 6, 2010 FOIA Request to the NSA ....................... 69 E. Refusals to Process Requests ............................................................................................. 71 1. Count Nine in No. 11-444: May 13, 2010 FOIA Request to the CIA ........................... 72 2. Count Eight in No. 11-444: July 5, 2010 FOIA Request to the CIA ...... | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
dfb043b7-cfc1-4302-ac5f-70064eac447e | ....................... 74 3. Count One in No. 11-444: August 8, 2010 FOIA Requests to the CIA ......................... 77 4. Count Ten in No. 11-444: February 16, 2011 FOIA Request to the CIA ...................... 79 F. Exemption 1 ....................................................................................................................... 83 1. Exemption 1 Withholdings in No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
c1306f03-3784-4b90-bb3c-bbac9c17601e | . 11-445 (CIA and DIA) ............................................ 84 2. Exemption 1 Withholdings in No. 11-443 ..................................................................... 90 G. Exemption 2 ....................................................................................................................... 96 H. Exemption 3 ............................................................. | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
fc03195a-4be8-49a9-a7ba-d7c06791243e | .......................................................... 99 1. CIA ............................................................................................................................... 100 2. DIA ............................................................................................................................... 119 3. ODNI .................................................... | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
8b035bfe-3fb4-48b5-90ad-a44cdba06e41 | ........................................................................ 120 J. Exemption 5 ..................................................................................................................... 122 1. Deliberative-Process Privilege ..................................................................................... 123 2. Attorney-Client Privilege ................................. | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
a0ca3221-2611-4289-9f83-7a476377dedd | ............................................................ 131 5 3. Attorney Work-Product Doctrine ................................................................................. 143 K. Electronic Records ........................................................................................................... 147 1. CIA ........................................................................ | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
821c9170-7738-4967-ad2d-a9f2a11f3fcd | ....................................................... 148 2. State Department .......................................................................................................... 151 L. Segregability .................................................................................................................... 154 IV. Conclusion ........................................................ | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
f064d8e5-f7f8-4dd2-86cb-cc36da8ab817 | ................................................................... 157 I. BACKGROUND The plaintiff has twenty-four claims remaining in these related actions | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
401bc403-3b00-4d7d-b05c-1ae73b78f9df | . Since twenty-one of the plaintiff’s remaining claims relate to specific FOIA requests, the Court will briefly summarize the timing and content of those requests, the agency’s processing of and response to those requests, and the aspects of the agency’s processing and responses that are challenged by the plaintiff | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
94a87bb2-da2c-49b3-8a73-3a9cfd9189e0 | .3 In summarizing the specific FOIA requests at issue, the Court will proceed in chronological order, rather than in the order the requests are pleaded in the plaintiff’s complaints. In this regard, the Court will organize its discussion by the year in which the FOIA requests were first submitted | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
001dd2d5-573d-4e6c-800b-e80cc4598333 | . The Court will also discuss the factual and procedural background related to the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. 3 The Court will not summarize the factual background related to Count Twelve in No. 11-445 or Count Nineteen in No. 11-444 because the plaintiff has either conceded summary judgment or voluntarily withdrawn those claims. See Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. Summ. J | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
6b2d3bc1-4d7d-4e8b-9a98-4bf795b9ba91 | . on Counts 12 and 20 (“Pl.’s Second 445 Opp’n”) at 2, No. 11-445, ECF No. 43; Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. on Counts 1, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, and 20 (“Pl.’s First 444 Opp’n”) at 1 n.2, No. 11-444, ECF No. 26 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
efaee23c-1c86-4a46-bdcb-5dcbdb222a4b | . 6 The plaintiff’s two other remaining claims relate to policies or practices of the CIA that the plaintiff alleges are in violation of the FOIA, which claims the Court summarized, along with other policy and practice claims, in its previous memorandum opinion in these related cases.4 See NSC I, 898 F. Supp. 2d at 243–44, 248–49 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
76bb517c-d9d3-4388-bdf2-84f53ab9a933 | . Specifically, as labeled in the Court’s previous opinion, the plaintiff challenges the CIA’s Assignment of Rights Policy and its Document-Level Exemption Policy.5 See id. A. 2009 FOIA Requests 1. Count Twenty in No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
96ca9725-5e43-4f6b-80b4-1382abd3ea4a | . 11-444: September 25, 2009 FOIA Request to the CIA In a letter dated September 25, 2009, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the CIA seeking “all [CIA] records, including cross-references, pertaining to guidelines for attorneys in the Office of General Counsel (‘OGC’) for the conduct of civil cases, especially pertaining to interactions between OGC attorneys and Department of Justice | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
5025c6bb-a7a0-4907-b37f-2296e25bf831 | (‘DOJ’) attorneys | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
b5009c06-a3c0-40d7-b433-fc60809ab85e | .” See Decl. of Martha M. Lutz (Dec. 13, 2011) (“First Lutz Decl.”) Ex. T at 1, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-4. By letter dated October 28, 2009, the CIA acknowledged this request and informed NSC that the CIA would “search for records existing through the date of this acceptance letter.” First Lutz Decl. Ex. U at 1, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-4 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
94b37535-d0b9-44be-ac0b-d2d0112a9454 | . By letter dated January 10, 2011, the CIA provided a final response to the plaintiff’s September 25, 2009 FOIA request, informing the plaintiff that “[w]e did not locate any records responsive to your request.” First Lutz Decl. Ex. V at 1, No. 11- 444, ECF No. 20-4 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
67fe0466-bd61-414e-a68c-d026e768a859 | . The plaintiff administratively appealed the adequacy of the CIA’s search efforts with respect to this request by letter dated January 21, 2011. See First Lutz Decl. . 4 The Court previously set forth all of the facts regarding the FOIA request that is the subject of Count One in 11- 443, and the Court incorporates that discussion fully here. See NSC I, 898 F. Supp. 2d at 243–44 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
95bc8bb8-69d3-4d6c-ac13-739e833f78cf | . 5 The Court will not address the facts underlying the plaintiff’s challenge to the CIA’s Cut-Off Date Policy in Count Twenty-One of No. 11-444 because the plaintiff has agreed to voluntarily withdraw that claim. See Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. on Counts Eight and Twenty-One (“Pl.’s Second 444 Opp’n”) at 2, No. 11-444, ECF No. 46 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
b5580675-c249-4ab1-9857-c084ad8e5ee4 | . 7 By letter dated March 15, 2011, the CIA’s Agency Release Panel (“ARP”) denied the plaintiff’s appeal, concluding that the CIA’s search efforts were adequate. See id. . In Count Twenty of No. 11-444, the plaintiff challenges the adequacy of the CIA’s search efforts in response to the plaintiff’s September 25, 2009 request, including the CIA’s use of an allegedly improper search cut-off date | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
b1f5aaf8-9809-4852-8513-57653fdba8ab | . See First Am. Compl. (“444 FAC”) ¶–110, No. 11-444, ECF No. 6; Mem. in Supp. Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. on Counts 1, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, & 20 (“Def.’s First 444 Mem.”) at 10–11, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20.6 2. Count Eight in No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
73c2c0a5-2cce-47a9-aee2-9734565eb488 | . 11-445: October 22, 2009 FOIA Request to the DOJ On October 22, 2009, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”), seeking “copies of all [DOJ] [OLC] opinions concerning the FOIA or the Privacy Act.” Decl. of Paul P. Colborn (Oct. 2, 2012) (“Colborn Decl.”) Ex. A, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-11 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
f024b1df-0ffb-4ac8-85b1-0838d58991a7 | . By e-mail dated October 25, 2009, the plaintiff expanded the scope of this request to include opinions concerning the Federal Records Act, the Presidential Records Act, or agency records retention policies. See Colborn Decl. Ex. B, No. 11- 445, ECF No. 29-11 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
18d48965-8fd4-4d78-88b0-95c4988a6c8c | . On March 27, 2012, the OLC provided a final response to the plaintiff’s FOIA request, producing twenty records in full and withholding all remaining responsive records under FOIA Exemption 5 because “[t]hey are protected by the deliberative process and attorney- client privileges.” Colborn Decl. Ex. C, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-11 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
e62c1f8c-44c7-4837-90a3-0f180d73b965 | . On July 6, 2012, the OLC sent another letter to the plaintiff, advising it that the OLC was “releasing . . . one of the withheld records because [OLC] discovered that it was previously released.” Colborn Decl. Ex. D, 11- 445, ECF No. 29-11 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
66bf503d-9fae-46c0-a81c-a5ab8ce3c805 | . After releasing that one record, the OLC informed NSC that it continued to 6 Because this opinion addresses the claims in three separate actions brought by the same plaintiff, for purposes of organizational clarity only, the Court will generally refer to each case by its civil case number, e.g., “No. 11-443 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
73cab995-69b1-449b-954a-566942d6347d | .” Additionally, for the same reasons, the Court will refer to court filings in each case with a numerical prefix that corresponds to each civil case number. For example, the plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint in No. 11–444, when cited in short form, will be referred to, for citation purposes only, as “444 FAC.” 8 withhold fifty-eight records responsive to its request. Id. In Count Eight of No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
5bfb5c39-6a40-4b02-9569-e9b12a8093da | . 11-445, the plaintiff challenges the DOJ’s determination to withhold sixteen of the responsive OLC opinions under FOIA Exemption 5. See First Am. Compl. (“445 FAC”) ¶–67, No. 11-445, ECF No. 7; Colborn Decl. Ex. F at 1, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-11. 3. Counts One, Five, and Six in No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
d18a0b66-98c6-475d-a634-2b537be9616f | . 11-445: December 1, 2009 FOIA Requests to the CIA, DIA, and ODNI On December 1, 2009, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the CIA for “all [CIA] records referencing FOIA and Privacy Act requests submitted by [ten listed parties] that contain remarks, comments, notes, explanations, etc | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
bdb53402-96b6-4b83-ad6b-35f9a9248c57 | . made by CIA personnel or contractors about the processing of these requests (and appeals, if appropriate), the invocations of exemptions, or related matters.” See Decl. of Martha M. Lutz (Sept. 26, 2012) (“Third Lutz Decl.”) Ex. A at 1, No. 11-445, ECF No. 52-1; id. Ex. B at 1, No. 11-445, ECF No. 52-1 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
a88ef20f-c62e-4de5-aa5e-92d62e626080 | . On December 8, 2009, the plaintiff limited the scope of this request by notifying the CIA that it could “limit [its] search for requests submitted by Michael Ravnitzky to only requests submitted in 2006 and 2009” and that it could “limit [its] search to the last four years in which requests were received from [each] requester.” See Third Lutz Decl. Ex. A | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
de79ae6a-a1e3-4aaf-bf47-1a5ebbd78d7b | . On September 22, 2010, the CIA produced seventy records to the plaintiff in part with redactions made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3 and/or 6, and the CIA also notified the plaintiff that the CIA was withholding seventy-four other responsive records in their entirety pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, and/or 5. See Third Lutz Decl. Ex. B at 1. In Count One of No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
759f9aad-7f21-4fe1-994b-1343ef3fa2a8 | . 11-445, the plaintiff challenges all of the CIA’s withholding determinations made under FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, and/or 5. See 445 FAC ¶– 17; Mem. in Supp. Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. on Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 (“Defs.’ First 445 Mem.”) at 2, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29; Pl.’s Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. on Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 (“Pl.’s First 445 Opp’n”) at 23 n.19, No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
f42202bf-61be-4a2f-9dde-f0130dea81b4 | . 11-445, ECF No. 33. 9 Also on December 1, 2009, the plaintiff submitted FOIA requests to the Defense Intelligence Agency (“DIA”) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (“ODNI”) for substantially the same category of records sought in the December 1, 2009 FOIA request to the CIA | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
9e235451-f1bc-4b0a-a03e-734082ffe9c1 | . The only difference was that, instead of records containing processing notes from “CIA personnel or contractors,” the request to the DIA sought processing notes from “DIA personnel or contractors” and the request to the ODNI sought processing notes from “NSA personnel or contractors.” See Decl. of John F. Hackett (Oct. 1, 2012) (“Hackett Decl.”) Ex. A at 1, No. 11- 445, ECF No. 29-8; Decl | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
0e2510f1-3d2a-40b2-9a2e-70549627e38e | . of Alesia Y. Williams (Oct. 1, 2012) (“First Williams Decl.”) Ex. A at 1, No. 11-445, ECF No. 53-1. The plaintiff also narrowed its processing notes requests to the DIA and the ODNI on December 8, 2009 in the same manner it limited its processing notes request to the CIA. See Hackett Decl. Ex. B, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-8; First Williams Decl. Ex. B, No. 11-445, ECF No. 53-1 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
abcfd4d3-d1cb-4e97-9625-f42cde4ab497 | . The ODNI produced responsive records to the plaintiff on May 27, 2010 and June 21, 2010, releasing a total of thirty-four pages, in part, with redactions made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 2, 3, 5, and 6. See Hackett Decl. ¶–12, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-8. The DIA produced additional responsive records to the plaintiff in six separate releases from July 25, 2012 to September 28, 2012 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
3e6badd3-0f2c-49ef-ad34-e50b4d553cbf | . See First Williams Decl. ¶–13, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-12. In total, the DIA released 86 records in full, released 215 records in part, and withheld 45 records in full, with withholdings made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3, 5, and/or 6. See id.; see also First Williams Decl. Exs. D–I, ECF No. 53-1. In Counts Five and Six of No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
fc083b9a-1292-4b1c-bbf2-7e4d8fcbafe2 | . 11-445, the plaintiff challenges the DIA’s and the ODNI’s withholding determinations, respectively, made under 10 FOIA Exemptions 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. See 445 FAC ¶–54; Defs.’ First 445 Mem. at 4–6; Pl.’s First 445 Opp’n at 6, 17–22, 24.7 B. 2010 FOIA Requests 1. Counts Seven, Nine, and Ten in No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
93f1eee4-95b2-4a87-9e00-e8275070a789 | . 11-445: February 6, 2010 FOIA Requests to the CIA, State Department, and NSA On February 6, 2010, the plaintiff submitted three substantially identical FOIA requests—one to the CIA, one to the State Department, and one to the National Security Agency (“NSA”) | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
6502294f-3544-427f-a768-f32e61b65ae8 | . The request to the CIA sought “all current training handbooks, manuals, guidelines, checklists, worksheets, and similar documents provided to [CIA] FOIA and Privacy Act analysts (both agency employees and contractors).” See Third Lutz Decl. Ex. G at 1, No. 11-445, ECF No. 52-1 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
899ae3a6-cb29-4637-bb30-edc30d4f5a70 | . The plaintiff’s requests to the State Department and the NSA were identical, except that they sought training materials provided to State Department and NSA FOIA and Privacy Act analysts, respectively. See Decl. of Sheryl L. Walter (Oct. 1, 2012) (“First Walter Decl.”) Ex. 1, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-10; Decl. of Pamela N. Phillips (Sept. 28, 2012) (“Phillips Decl.”) Att. 1, No. 11-445, ECF No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
8bd517d8-68f6-48be-b710-0b2baab0b39f | . 29-13. All three requests also limited the scope of the request to “documents in current use as of 6 February 2010.” See Third Lutz Decl. Ex. G at 1; Walter Decl. Ex. 1, at 1; Phillips Decl. Ex. 1, at 1. The first agency to issue a response to the plaintiff’s requests was the CIA | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
065fb5f9-1d20-4653-9eb2-734a3fb13361 | . On May 26, 2010, the CIA issued a final response to the plaintiff, in which it released two documents in full and withheld twenty-nine other responsive documents in full pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1, 2, 3, and/or 5. See Third Lutz Decl. , No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-1. In Count Seven of No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
288e8307-f778-4085-afb2-f7da3705d89a | . 11- 7 The DIA did not originally claim FOIA Exemption 1 in its release letters to the plaintiff, see Williams Decl. Exs. D–I, but the DIA does assert Exemption 1 in its Vaughn index, see, e.g., Williams Decl. (“[D]ocuments numbered V-274, V-276, and V-287 in the Vaughn index contain classified information . . . . and it is appropriately withheld under FOIA exemption (b)(1).”) | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
e8a2216f-7c21-4842-8f7c-f93f5e6433d7 | . 11 445, the plaintiff challenges all of the CIA’s withholding determinations under FOIA Exemptions 1, 2, 3, and/or 5. See 445 FAC ¶–61; Defs.’ First 445 Mem. at 7. The next agency to respond to the plaintiff’s February 6, 2010 FOIA requests was the NSA | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
49961948-676d-4c8d-86a3-fc48a5c61874 | . On April 22, 2011, the NSA issued a final response to the plaintiff, in which it released, in part, over 500 pages of responsive records, with redactions made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, 5, 6, and/or 7; the NSA also withheld one document in its entirety pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5. See Phillips Decl. ; Phillips Decl. Att. 3, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-13. In Count Ten of No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
30e990b8-75e9-47a0-b8bc-9244f59f0a90 | . 11-445, the plaintiff challenges the adequacy of the NSA’s search efforts in responding to the February 6, 2010 FOIA request, and in particular the plaintiff challenges the NSA’s failure to locate templates that are responsive to the request. See 445 FAC ¶–77; Defs.’ First 445 Mem. at 10. The State Department was the final agency to respond to the plaintiff’s February 6, 2010 FOIA requests | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
1d8db704-ab4d-4bde-bce8-515354aab4e9 | . The State Department produced responsive records to the plaintiff in two initial releases on October 20, 2011 and January 26, 2012. See First Walter Decl. ¶–9. In these two initial releases, the State Department produced a total of 103 records in whole or in part, with redactions made to seven documents pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3 and/or 6. See First Walter Decl. Exs. 5–6, No. 11-445, ECF No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
e5e9e9c8-db97-428b-b263-73f9a449e1be | . 29-10. By e-mail dated February 4, 2012, the plaintiff requested that the State Department search for certain records referenced in a document produced in the first two State Department releases. See First Walter Decl. Ex. 8, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-10 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
6f43a971-f635-4b7c-8159-1da7a58b93ee | . In response to this request, the State Department conducted further searching, and on March 9, 2012 released sixteen responsive records to the plaintiff, in whole or in part. See First Walter Decl. Ex. 9, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-10. By letter dated September 26, 2012, 12 after “a further search,” the State Department released one more responsive document to the plaintiff in full | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
c085b8eb-ecbe-4ac9-a40e-3ed2c3342c0d | . See First Walter Decl. Ex. 10, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-10. These four productions, totaling the release, in whole or in part, of 120 records, however, were not the final correspondence from the State Department in response to the plaintiff’s FOIA request | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
76255e8f-42cd-4738-8fb0-45901dac2932 | . On March 1, 2013, the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security responded to the plaintiff’s February 6, 2010 FOIA request, releasing twenty-six responsive records which had not been previously released. See Notice of Recent Development Regarding Count 9, at 1, No. 11-445, ECF No. 49 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
3a0e36d5-ac32-4007-9f5d-074c7e11c358 | . According to the State Department, this was “an inadvertent release of records,” which occurred because “at some point in the processing of Plaintiff’s FOIA request, it was mistakenly sent to [the Bureau of Diplomatic Security].” See Third Decl. of Sheryl L. Walter (June 18, 2013) (“Third Walter Decl.”) , No. 11-445, ECF No. 51-1. In Count Nine of No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
607e67fd-ddf3-49ce-8927-7b9b390dea12 | . 11-445, the plaintiff challenges three aspects of the State Department’s response to its February 6, 2010 FOIA request: (1) the withholding of certain information from one responsive record pursuant to FOIA Exemption 3; (2) the adequacy of the State Department’s search efforts; and (3) the failure of the State Department to release responsive records in an electronic format | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
7b88e892-8738-45a0-baee-739529aa0a6e | . See 445 FAC ¶–72; Defs.’ First 445 Mem. at 9. 2. Counts Two and Three in No. 11-445: February 9, 2010 FOIA Requests to the CIA On February 4, 2010, the CIA informed the plaintiff that, with respect to his December 1, 2009 FOIA request for FOIA processing notes related to previous FOIA requests, the CIA could not retrieve FOIA requests by an organization’s name, but only by a person’s name | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
7e3403ba-ffaa-451a-ac7c-7df1208484a9 | . See Third Lutz Decl. Ex. C at 1, No. 11-445, ECF No. 52-1. In response, the plaintiff submitted a letter to the CIA on February 9, 2010, asking the CIA to search for records related to specific previous FOIA requests submitted by individuals associated with four organizations, including NSC and 13 the James Madison Project (“JMP”). Id | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
535decab-3b58-4cf5-96eb-bef4182594ed | . With respect to JMP, the plaintiff requested that the CIA search for records of processing notes related to twenty-seven specific FOIA requests submitted by Mark Zaid, Bradley Moss, and Kelly McClanahan. Id. Likewise, with respect to NSC, the plaintiff requested that the CIA search for records of processing notes related to seven specific FOIA requests submitted by Kelly McClanahan | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
fb3f9e00-0d1f-4383-9ba9-18cc016e0a98 | . See Third Lutz Decl. Ex. C at 1. The CIA considered these two new FOIA requests and assigned each of them a separate request identifier number. See Third Lutz Decl. ¶–10. On July 30, 2010, the CIA provided a final response to the plaintiff’s request regarding previous FOIA requests submitted by Kelly McClanahan on behalf of NSC. See Third Lutz Decl. Ex. F, No. 11-445, ECF No. 52-1 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
5a3d8c72-f7aa-43e5-8ddb-6e2a14506786 | . The CIA released three responsive documents in full and thirty responsive documents in part, with redactions made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3, 5, and/or 6. Third Lutz Decl. . The CIA also withheld seventeen responsive documents in full pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, 5, and/or 6. Id. In Count Three of No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
d1a2679e-7982-4f7a-8f3f-7d4c0b28e2ed | . 11-445, the plaintiff challenges the CIA’s decision to withhold information responsive to this request pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, and 5. See 445 FAC ¶–31; Defs.’ First 445 Mem. At 4; Pl.’s First 445 Opp’n at 23 n.19 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
c827b47d-f9de-446b-bc62-9214a7872340 | . On September 29, 2010, the CIA provided a final response to the plaintiff’s request regarding previous FOIA requests submitted by Mark Zaid, Bradley Moss, and Kelly McClanahan on behalf of JMP. See Third Lutz Decl. Ex. D, No. 11-445, ECF No. 52- 1 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
d1479b98-043d-42eb-86f3-8e2acd47770e | . The CIA produced 14 responsive documents in full and 106 responsive documents in part, with redactions made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3, 5, and/or 6. Third Lutz Decl. . The CIA also withheld 215 responsive documents in full pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, and/or 5. Id. In Count Two of No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
e2669dc5-12c5-4f0f-b12c-c700c660e00b | . 11-445, the plaintiff challenges the CIA’s decision to withhold 14 information responsive to this request pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, and 5. See 445 FAC ¶–24; Defs.’ First 445 Mem. At 3; Pl.’s First 445 Opp’n at 23 n.19. 3. Count Seventeen in No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
7e4b7243-d973-4b28-8762-bed78ffb28d6 | . 11-444: May 4, 2010 FOIA Requests to the CIA By letter dated May 4, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the CIA for two categories of records: (1) “The 15 FOIA requests received by the [CIA] during Fiscal Year 2008 that were classified as ‘full denials’ because the ‘Records were not Reasonably Described’ in . . | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
e3cebf90-6e22-4294-adae-a898ae2b1993 | . [the CIA’s] 2008 Annual Report,” and (2) “The 18 FOIA requests received by the CIA during Fiscal Year 2006 that were classified as ‘full denials’ on the grounds of ‘records not reasonably described’ in . . . [the CIA’s] 2006 Annual Report.” See First Lutz Decl. Ex. Y at 1, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-4 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
edf43819-6e80-4806-9732-d1a433e7f82f | . Also on May 4, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a second FOIA request to the CIA, which sought three other categories of similar records: (1) “The 510 FOIA requests received by the [CIA] during Fiscal Year 2009 that were classified as ‘full denials’ because they were considered ‘Improper FOIA Requests for Other Reasons’ in . . | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
2e4fc61e-3b3a-4fd1-bfbb-f9fbc9291eaf | . [the CIA’s] 2009 Annual Report,” (2) “The 290 FOIA requests received by the CIA during Fiscal Year 2008 that were classified as ‘full denials’ because they were considered ‘Improper FOIA Requests for Other Reasons’ in . . | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
cc8533d5-29bc-4791-887d-b66c75cbefb5 | . [the CIA’s] 2008 Annual Report,” and (3) “The 79 FOIA requests received by the CIA during Fiscal Year 2006 that were classified as ‘full denials’ because they were considered ‘not proper FOIA requests for some other reason’ in . . . [the CIA’s] 2006 Annual Report.” First Lutz Decl. Ex. Z at 1, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-4 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
3d612099-9e8c-492b-9e2a-05532ddca1cf | . For both of these requests, the plaintiff specified that “[o]nly the initial request letters and the return CIA correspondence stating that the requests do not reasonably describe the records sought should be considered responsive to this request.” First Lutz Decl. Exs. Y; see id. Ex. Z | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
fddd6bc3-adcc-4c93-b082-7765a1780ebf | . On August 7, 2010, the plaintiff’s counsel sent a facsimile to the CIA stating “it would probably be easier to just consolidate the two requests [submitted on May 4, 2010]” and “I would 15 not object if you chose to combine them and treat them as a single request.” First Lutz Decl. Ex. AA, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-4 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
a2dd3cdf-c02e-42cf-b3f8-9cf77909e6c8 | . Hence, on November 17, 2010, the CIA informed the plaintiff that the CIA was combining the two FOIA requests sent on May 4, 2010 into a single request. See First Lutz Decl. Ex. BB, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-4 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
e9ea1fb6-67f0-4dc9-a809-ebceb3546ad2 | . On August 31, 2011, the CIA provided a final response regarding this combined FOIA request, in which it released five responsive documents in full, released 1,010 responsive documents in part with redactions made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3, 5, and/or 6, and withheld three documents in full pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3 and/or 6. See First Lutz Decl. Ex. CC at 2, No. 11-444, ECF No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
3361a20b-52a3-4ad8-9def-3bb9153307e6 | . 20-4; First Lutz Decl. .8 After the plaintiff requested by e-mail to the DOJ that the CIA confirm the totality of its production, the CIA provided ten additional responsive documents in part with redactions made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3 and 6. See First Lutz Decl. . In Count Seventeen of No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
75f12997-5a79-4f31-9beb-51b4632db1e8 | . 11-444, the plaintiff challenges the CIA’s decision to withhold information responsive to this combined request pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3 and 5. See 444 FAC ¶–93; Def.’s First 444 Mem. at 8; Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. on Counts 1, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, and 20 (“Pl.’s First 444 Opp’n”) at 30–35, No. 11-444, ECF No. 26 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
89619b49-a93d-4652-b055-db25cc390764 | . In Count Seventeen, the plaintiff also challenges the failure of the CIA to release responsive records in an electronic format. See Pl.’s First 444 Opp’n at 39–40. 4. Count Three in No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
fa5f69d1-73a4-459f-9efe-554f36fc2e34 | . 11-443: May 12, 2010 FOIA Request to the CIA On May 12, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the CIA, which sought “all Tables of Contents (‘TOCs’) from the [CIA] in-house journal Studies in Intelligence.” See Decl. of Martha M. Lutz (Aug. 8, 2012) (“Second Lutz Decl.”) Ex. A at 1, No. 11-443, ECF No. 27-1 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
c5902998-b0a2-4a4c-9865-0468c8b1fa43 | . Via telephone on June 4, 2010, the plaintiff clarified that it was requesting “all classified ‘TOCs,’ 8 The CIA did not claim FOIA Exemption 5 in its August 31, 2011 final response, see First Lutz Decl. Ex. CC at 2, but the CIA is now claiming FOIA Exemption 5 in this litigation, see First Lutz Decl. . 16 and any unclassified ‘TOCs,’ that were not available on the CIA website.” Second Lutz Decl | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
a3fc2072-8c76-4a04-a25c-3e030335a935 | . Ex. B at 1, No. 11-443, ECF No. 27-1. On December 5, 2011, the CIA provided a final response to the plaintiff’s May 12, 2010 FOIA request, releasing 43 responsive documents in full and 131 responsive documents in part, with redactions made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1 and/or 3. See Second Lutz Decl. Ex. C at 1, No. 11-443, ECF No. 27-1 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
2ff6967d-c404-4a59-a5e8-82cd8ecbd4a2 | . By e-mail on December 30, 2011, the plaintiff notified the CIA’s counsel that it believed there were several records missing from the CIA’s production. See Second Lutz Decl. , No. 11-443, ECF No. 27-1 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
ea2adb19-34ec-43d9-9d13-71d6775f8002 | . In response, the CIA conducted a supplemental search and, by letters dated February 7, 2012 and February 14, 2012, the CIA released to the plaintiff twenty-nine additional responsive TOCs, in part, with redactions made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3. See Second Lutz Decl. ; Second Lutz Decl. Exs. D–E, No. 11-443, ECF No. 27-1 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
cca9dbfc-a955-46ed-82e7-fc609aaa1b40 | . In its February 7, 2012 communication, the CIA also released to the plaintiff certain information that had been redacted from previously released documents. See Second Lutz Decl. Ex. D at 2. In Count Three of No. 11-443, the plaintiff challenges the CIA’s withholding of information responsive to the May 12, 2010 FOIA request under FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3. See Compl. (“443 Compl.”) ¶–33, No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
ad9f34e7-0312-4a7e-a8b5-bec868bb0e13 | . 11-443, ECF No. 1; Mem. in Supp. Def.’s Mot. Summ J. on Count Three (“Def.’s First 443 Mem.”) at 1, ECF No. 27.9 5. Count Nine in No | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
4144473e-a588-4e5f-ba98-8ea7cb56433e | . 11-444: May 13, 2010 FOIA Request to the CIA By letter dated May 13, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the CIA, which sought “a representative sample of [CIA] analytical reports and memoranda presenting 9 The plaintiff also originally raised a challenge to the adequacy of the CIA’s search in response to the FOIA request at issue in Count Three in No. 11-443. See Pl | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
20a3cd9b-15d3-4b20-822c-dacec383dae3 | .’s In Camera Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. on Count Three (“Pl.’s First 443 Opp’n”) at 3–4, 20, No. 11-443, ECF No. 58 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
57f4bcc9-e62c-4794-9ab3-1d93900a9a07 | . Specifically, based on certain discrepancies between the produced articles and the articles present on the CIA’s website, the plaintiff challenged the CIA’s “refusal to search for the full Table of Contents for the June 2009 issue [of Studies in Intelligence] and the correct Table of Contents for the Summer 1973 issue.” Id. at 20 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
483c92b0-bc1e-4b3a-b86b-c2f132528895 | . In a subsequent filing, however, the plaintiff notified the Court that it “withdraws its challenge to the adequacy of [the CIA’s] search” in No. 11-443. See Notice of Clarification at 2, No. 11-443, ECF No. 60 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
8b375a85-e70e-46fc-b5d6-d8b38d8df6ca | . 17 psychological analyses or profiles of foreign government officials, terrorist leaders, international criminals, business figures, and other intelligence targets prepared by the Medical and Psychological Analysis Center (‘MPAC’) or its predecessor Office of Leadership Analysis (‘OLA’).” First Lutz Decl. Ex. M, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-3 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
6e899558-726b-4a9c-b961-ada630a40a5e | . In this letter, NSC provided “guidelines” to the CIA regarding “what we consider a ‘representative sample,’” which included (1) “[o]nly final official reports or memoranda that discuss an MPAC/OLA analyst’s conclusions about a target’s psychology,” (2) “[n]o more than twenty reports/memoranda for each year,” (3) “[f]our reports/memoranda for each year (unless less were created that year) for | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
620696a0-eebf-49ff-8c11-40a50b3d4780 | individuals in each category of intelligence target,” and (4) “[r]easonable variety in the intelligence targets wherever possible (e | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
4199f687-deb8-4db9-b0f8-5697f41d43f8 | .g., foreign government officials should be from a variety of foreign governments, terrorist leaders should be from different terrorist organizations, etc.).” Id. at 1–2. As to the fourth guideline, NSC further stated that “[f]or the foreign government officials, we would also appreciate if possible a variety of the type of officials (e.g | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
d2e42bb4-4522-477a-88d6-a17d984f97d1 | ., some heads of state, some intelligence officials, some law enforcement officials, some financial officials, etc.).” Id. at 2. The plaintiff’s letter also stated “[y]ou may limit your search to records created since 2000, but we do not have any particular intelligence targets in mind, since the purpose of this information is to analyze the style and methodology of the CIA’s leadership analysts | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
61e09945-cad3-468f-a0b8-59e66849aac0 | .” Id. at 1. The CIA provided a final response to the plaintiff’s request on June 23, 2010, stating “[w]e cannot accept your FOIA request in its current form, because it would require the Agency to perform an unreasonably burdensome search.” First Lutz Decl. Ex. N at 1, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-3 | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
290bd424-2797-48c7-a638-e1e4496c0480 | . Citing “the breadth and lack of specificity of [NSC’s] request,” the CIA informed the plaintiff that “[t]he FOIA does not provide a mechanism to perform research.” Id | National_Security_Counselors_2013-08-15.txt |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.