Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. United States Department of State
395 U.S. App. D.C. 138
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- CPIA governs import-restriction agreements on cultural property; CPAC advises on requests but lacks final authority.
- State withheld FOIA records related to China, Italy, and Cyprus cultural artifact restrictions; 70 documents released in full, 39 partially, 19 fully withheld.
- Guilds challenged exemptions 1, 3, and 5 and the adequacy of State's search; district court granted summary judgment for State.
- Court addresses whether exemptions apply to CPAC materials and to confidential information under CPIA provisions.
- Court remands on one Exemption 3 item and on the adequacy of the search, while upholding most withholding decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exemption 1 validity for Cypriot and Chinese materials | Cypriot material not properly classified; Chinese summary cannot justify full-classification. | Material properly classified under EO 12,958 §§ 1.4(b),(d). | Exemption 1 affirmed for withheld material. |
| Exemption 3 applicability via CPIA provisions 2605(h) and 2605(i)(1) | State misapplied Exemption 3; 2605(h) lacks time-limited effect; 2605(i)(1) not shown. | 2605(h) authorizes withholding; 2605(i)(1) confidentiality shown for the Parks emails. | Exemption 3 upheld for 2605(h) and 2605(i)(1) item; remand on some grounds for 2605(i)(1). |
| Adequacy of consent-based confidentiality standard under Landano for 2605(i)(1) | Grafeld declaration insufficient to prove confidential disclosure. | Confidentiality shown through notations and declarations; Landano standard met. | Remand on 2605(i)(1) item to allow fuller justification; otherwise upheld. |
| Exemption 5 application to CPAC reports and the search adequacy | CPAC reports presumptively public; Exemption 5 inappropriate; search inadequate. | CPAC reports are deliberative and pre-decisional; search must be thorough but not blanket. | Exemption 5 upheld for CPAC deliberative material; remanded for clarifications on backups and archives. |
| Adequacy of State's search for responsive documents | Search too narrow; ignored archived emails and backups. | Search reasonably calculated to uncover relevant documents; some email gaps acceptable. | Remanded for further clarification on backups/archived materials; district court reversed on search as to extent noted. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dept. of Defense, 628 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (agency bears burden of showing exemptions; de novo review)
- Public Citizen v. Dep't of State, 276 F.3d 634 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (public-domain disclosure standards for prior-disclosure theory)
- Public Citizen v. Dep't of State, 11 F.3d 198 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (public disclosure limits on summaries and partial disclosures)
- Carlisle Tire & Rubber Co. v. U.S. Customs Serv., 663 F.2d 210 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (scope of disclosure and limited disclosures under FOIA)
- Landano v. United States Dept. of Justice, 508 U.S. 165 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (confidentiality standards for sources under FOIA Exemption 7(D))
- Jordan v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 591 F.2d 753 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (deliberative process and pre-decisional material under Exemption 5)
- Mapother v. Dep't of Justice, 3 F.3d 1533 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (deliberative material and discretion in withholding under Exemption 5)
- Montrose Chemical Corp. of Cal. v. Train, 491 F.2d 63 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (deliberative process and factual materials withheld under Exemption 5)
- Truitt v. Dep't of State, 897 F.2d 540 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (search methodology and adequacy standard under FOIA)
- Oglesby v. United States Dep't of the Army, 970 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (detailed search declarations and procedures under FOIA)