Aron Dibacco v. United States Army
417 App. D.C. 441
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Oglesby filed FOIA requests in 1985 to six agencies seeking records on Reinhard Gehlen and related WWII-era activities.
- Over decades, agencies released thousands of pages and the case evolved through multiple appeals, with subsequent legislation expanding disclosures.
- After Oglesby’s death, DiBacco and Webster pursued the case, challenging searches, withholdings, and redactions by the Army and CIA.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the agencies; on appeal, the court remanded to address redactions in a batch of records disclosed during the appeal.
- The Interagency Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act Interagency Working Group produced the Interagency Report, documenting search efforts and disclosures.
- The CIA and Army transferred large volumes of records to the National Archives under the Disclosure Act, with the Archives conducting further searches.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Army's search for records was adequate under FOIA | DiBacco contends the Army's search was insufficient and improperly limited to INSCOM locations. | Army argues its search under the Disclosure Act was reasonably calculated to locate responsive records and corroborated by declarations. | Army search deemed adequate; no material failure proven. |
| Whether the Army’s transfer of records to the National Archives moots FOIA obligations | Transfer to Archives was a tactic to evade disclosure and undermine FOIA rights. | Transfer was proper under the Disclosure Act to ensure public availability; it did not violate FOIA. | Transfer properly executed; not FOIA evasion; issue moot regarding fee waiver. |
| Whether the CIA's search and exemptions under FOIA were proper | CIA's search terms and reliance on exemptions are flawed and overbroad. | CIA's searches were comprehensive under the Disclosure Act; exemptions 1 and 3 were properly applied. | CIA searches adequate; Exemptions 1 and 3 properly applied. |
| Whether Exemption 1 and 3 apply to specific CIA disclosures | Disclosures should not be classified under Exemption 1 and 3 given the age and context. | Classifications and redactions were proper under Exemptions 1 and 3 and aligned with governing orders and statutes. | Exemptions 1 and 3 upheld for CIA materials. |
| Remand for redactions deemed permissible under FOIA in recently released Army documents | Redactions in newly released Army materials remain unreviewed for FOIA compliance. | Redactions fall within FOIA exemptions and need no further action beyond remand for district court review. | Remand to address narrow redactions in light of FOIA standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oglesby v. Department of Army (Oglesby I), 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (establishes de novo review and standards for search adequacy)
- Oglesby v. Department of Army (Oglesby II), 79 F.3d 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (discusses Vaughn indices and search adequacy; disclosures under Disclosure Act)
- Campbell v. Department of Justice, 164 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (superseding executive orders in pending FOIA actions)
- American Civil Liberties Union v. Department of Defense, 628 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (use of agency affidavits to justify exemptions; deference to classified status)
- SafeCard Services, Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (reasonableness of search not perfection; reasonable search standard)
- Wilbur v. CIA, 355 F.3d 675 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (nonbinding on FOIA search adequacy; cited for reasonable search standard)
- Sims v. CIA, 471 U.S. 159 (Supreme Court, 1985) (validity of Exemption 3; sources and methods protection)
- Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1980) (FOIA exemptions must be narrowly construed)
- Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Exemption 3 analysis focuses on statute and coverage)