100reporters v. U.S. Department of State, 602 F. Supp. 3d 41

Background

Plaintiffs 100Reporters and journalist Douglas Gillison filed FOIA requests (Dec. 2017) seeking: (1) INVEST database entries (from 1/1/2017) for eight countries relating to Leahy vetting; and (2) Leahy vetting guides/manuals and the “Report on Government Police Training and Equipping Programs” (§1235(c)) and updates.
State Dept. processed requests, produced records with redactions, and submitted a Vaughn index describing 50 contested documents; plaintiffs narrowed challenges to search adequacy for the congressional reports and to withholdings under FOIA Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), 7(E), and 7(F).
Key factual issues: where responsive congressional reports would be held (Office of Legislative Affairs vs. Office of the Secretary); scope and content of INVEST "NOTES" fields (24 columns, ~45,000 rows with notes); and two spreadsheets for Iraq and Egypt were inadvertently released unredacted.
The Department invoked Exemption 5 (deliberative process) for drafts, internal emails, and INVEST notes; Exemption 6/7(C) for names/identifiers; Exemption 7(E) for vetting techniques/workflow; and Exemption 7(F) for information placing individuals at risk.
Court holdings summarized: (a) State’s search was inadequate in one limited respect (failure to search Office of the Secretary) — both sides’ summary judgment motions denied without prejudice on that point; (b) many Exemption 5 and 7(E) withholdings were upheld (certain drafts, intra-agency deliberations, and procedural material), but Document 1 and INVEST notes require further agency review; (c) Exemption 6 and 7(C) withholdings of names were denied without prejudice for lack of specific supporting facts; (d) Exemption 7(F) withholdings tied to inadvertently released spreadsheets were held moot pending further action and the Department’s request to order return/destruction of the inadvertently produced files was denied without prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of search for §1235(c) congressional reports	Plaintiffs: State failed to search offices likely to hold final reports (Bureau of Legislative Affairs/Office of the Secretary).	State: Legislative Affairs unlikely to hold reports; searched DRL, INL, Counterterrorism; reports likely originated elsewhere.	Court: Denied summary judgment to both sides re: Office of the Secretary search; remanded limited additional search; other searches adequate.
Exemption 5 — drafts and deliberative communications (e.g., Document 1, Document 45, email chains)	Plaintiffs: Agency hasn’t proven documents remained predecisional/not adopted; vague Vaughn descriptions.	State: Documents are predecisional/deliberative; disclosure would chill candid deliberation; provided Vaughn details.	Court: Upheld deliberative privilege for many items (e.g., Document 45, several email chains); denied as to Document 1 and INVEST notes pending further factual showing and review for adoption/segregability.
INVEST spreadsheets — withholding of NOTES column under Exemption 5	Plaintiffs: NOTES redactions are overbroad; many entries may be factual/final and must be disclosed.	State: NOTES largely predecisional, voluminous (~45,000 notes), segregability review unduly burdensome without categorical approach.	Court: Denied State summary judgment for NOTES; ordered further review to segregate and produce non-deliberative/factual or post-decisional material; denied plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice.
Exemptions 6 and 7(C) — withholding names/identifiers of vetted foreign personnel	Plaintiffs: Leahy vetting is routine for nominees; disclosure serves strong public interest in Leahy compliance.	State: Disclosure risks harassment/retaliation, harms privacy and diplomatic relations, may deter cooperation by host governments.	Court: Denied State summary judgment without prejudice — agency failed to provide sufficient, particularized evidence of non-de minimis privacy harms and balancing; plaintiffs’ cross-motion denied without prejudice.
Exemption 7(E) — withholding of vetting techniques, workflow, INVEST procedures	Plaintiffs: Much of this information is publicly available; redactions overbroad.	State: Disclosure of non-public details would enable circumvention of vetting and reduce effectiveness; showed how specific withheld material could harm enforcement.	Court: Upheld 7(E) redactions for many records (Documents 6,11,20–23,27,50 and most of 21); denied as to portions of Document 21 and Document 25 for which agency did not show how disclosure would risk circumvention.
Return/destruction of inadvertently released (Iraq/Egypt) spreadsheets	Plaintiffs: No legal basis to require destruction/return; obtained via FOIA.	State: Inadvertent release included 7(F)-protected material; seeks court order directing return/destruction if withholdings are proper.	Court: Denied Department’s request without prejudice; held 7(F) issues moot pending further efforts by State; required more briefing/authority before ordering return.

Key Cases Cited

U.S. Dep’t of Def. v. Fed. Labor Rels. Auth., 510 U.S. 487 (Sup. Ct.) (FOIA presumption of disclosure; general FOIA principles)
Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (Sup. Ct.) (FOIA’s philosophy of full agency disclosure)
Milner v. Dep’t of the Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (Sup. Ct.) (narrow construction of FOIA exemptions)
Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir.) (Vaughn index requirement for agency justifications)
NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (Sup. Ct.) (deliberative process privilege scope)
Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir.) (factual material not protected by deliberative privilege)
Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Resp. v. U.S. Section, Int’l Boundary & Water Comm’n, 740 F.3d 195 (D.C. Cir.) (tests for "law enforcement purposes" under Exemption 7)
Sack v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 823 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir.) (background investigations and law-enforcement purpose analysis)
Bevis v. Dep’t of State, 801 F.2d 1386 (D.C. Cir.) (Exemption 7 can cover foreign enforcement-related records)
Reps. Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. FBI, 3 F.4th 350 (D.C. Cir.) (foreseeable-harm requirement for FOIA withholdings)