331 F. Supp. 3d 74
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- Plaintiff Brennan Center filed FOIA requests to DOJ (FBI) and DHS (I&A) seeking documents about federal "Countering Violent Extremism" (CVE) initiatives and related proposals (notably Shared Responsibility Committees, "SRCs").
- FBI and I&A produced records with redactions; dispute narrowed to a limited set of withheld or partially redacted materials and the adequacy of the FBI's search for SRC records.
- Agencies invoked FOIA Exemptions 1 (classified national-security information), 3 (statutory withholding under the National Security Act and Homeland Security Act), 5 (deliberative process), and 7 (law-enforcement records, including 7(D) and 7(E)).
- The FBI submitted detailed declarations about its searches (CRS, Sentinel, targeted searches in CVEO and select field offices) and later supplemented production after further searches.
- The Court evaluated adequacy of search and each exemption claim on summary judgment and granted the Government's motion in full, denying Brennan Center's cross-motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of FBI search for SRC records | FBI failed to search all reasonable systems/field offices and did not use adequate search methods | FBI conducted reasonable, targeted searches (CVEO paper/electronic files; later searched OPE and seven field offices); CRS/Sentinel searches were unlikely to locate topic-based records | Search was adequate; government entitled to summary judgment on search adequacy |
| Exemption 3 (National Security Act / Homeland Security Act) withholdings | CVE is not intelligence gathering; withheld material therefore cannot be sources/methods | Withheld material relates to intelligence sources/methods and statutes invoked qualify as Exemption 3 withholding statutes | Withholdings under Exemption 3 sustained for both FBI and I&A |
| Exemption 1 (classified information) redactions by FBI | Classification may be post-request or procedurally defective; classification authority not established | Document properly classified by authorized original classification authority; procedural requirements satisfied | Exemption 1 withholdings upheld; classification adequately justified |
| Exemption 5 (deliberative process) — multiple documents | Many program drafts are not predecisional/deliberative or insufficiently described | Drafts, MOUs, presentations and progress reports are predecisional and deliberative | Exemption 5 sustained for Draft MOU, SRC materials, and Strategic Plan redactions; insufficient showing for wholly withheld PowerPoint (but PowerPoint covered by Exemption 7 alternative) |
| Exemption 7 (7(E) techniques/guidelines; 7(D) confidential sources) | CVE materials are not law-enforcement; redactions overbroad or not source-protecting | Information bears a rational nexus to law enforcement; disclosure would risk circumvention and reveal confidential source | Exemption 7(E) and 7(D) withholdings for FBI and I&A sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Grand Cent. P'ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473 (2d Cir.) (summary-judgment standard for FOIA affidavits)
- Long v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 692 F.3d 185 (2d Cir.) (agency bears burden to show adequacy of search via declaration)
- Landano v. United States Department of Justice, 508 U.S. 165 (1993) (test for confidentiality under Exemption 7(D))
- Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. v. Department of Navy, 891 F.2d 414 (2d Cir.) (official disclosure doctrine defeats Exemptions 1 and 3 if prior official disclosure matches withheld specifics)
- Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir.) (Exemption 7(E) requires logical demonstration that disclosure might risk circumvention of law)