Aron Dibacco v. The United States Department, 926 F.3d 827

In 1985 Carl Oglesby submitted FOIA requests seeking records about Reinhard Gehlen, a former Nazi general recruited by the U.S. for post‑war intelligence activities; Oglesby later sued when he deemed agency productions inadequate.
Over decades the government produced thousands of pages; Oglesby died in 2011 and his daughter Aron DiBacco and partner Barbara Webster substituted as plaintiffs (collectively, “DiBacco”).
On appeal in 2015 this Court affirmed summary judgment for the government but remanded to the district court to consider a newly produced batch of 2,863 pages (the “Remand Records”), of which ten pages remained partially redacted.
On remand the district court found the Army’s prior and supplemental searches adequate and upheld the CIA’s limited redactions under FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3; DiBacco appealed those narrow issues.
The D.C. Circuit reviews adequacy of search and exemptions de novo and in this appeal considered (1) whether the agency search was reasonable and (2) whether the ten redactions were justified under Exemption 3 (National Security Act and CIA Act).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of agency search for responsive records	Benear declaration is boilerplate or not based on personal knowledge; Replacement Sheets in Remand Records were leads requiring further search	Benear’s declaration detailed a targeted, reasonable search; Replacement Sheets did not provide a clear, certain lead worth further inquiry	Search was adequate; Benear’s declaration was sufficiently detailed and based on personal knowledge; Replacement Sheets did not compel additional searches
Withholding/redactions under FOIA Exemption 3 (CIA Act & National Security Act)	Redactions were improper; CIA Act applies only to current employees; CIA has overused national security exemptions and may be acting in bad faith	Redactions are minimal and fit within statutory protections for intelligence personnel, sources, methods; “employed” can encompass former personnel; no evidence of bad faith	Redactions upheld under Exemption 3; CIA Act covers information relating to current or former personnel and National Security Act justifies withholding of sources/methods; no tangible evidence of bad faith

DiBacco v. U.S. Army, 795 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (prior appellate decision in this litigation; remand narrowed to redactions in newly produced records)
Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 79 F.3d 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (FOIA standards and earlier litigation in this case)
Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (search‑adequacy standards in FOIA actions)
Valencia–Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (affidavit requirements to establish adequacy of FOIA searches)
Kowalczyk v. Dep’t of Justice, 73 F.3d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (agency need not pursue every lead; must pursue leads that are clear and certain)
Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (supervisor affidavits may rely on colleagues’ personal knowledge in FOIA cases)
Larson v. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (standards for invoking Exemption 3 and deference to agency declarations)
Minier v. CIA, 88 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 1996) (interpreting “employed” to include former agents for CIA Act purposes)
Halperin v. CIA, 629 F.2d 144 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (purpose of CIA Act and protection of intelligence records)
Ctr. for Nat’l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 331 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (deference to executive affidavits predicting national security harm)