346 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Two related FOIA requests: Canning/Steinberg sought PSD-11 and records about the Muslim Brotherhood; SAE requested documents quoted in a Gulf News article and records being processed pursuant to the Canning request.
- The District Court consolidated Canning and SAE and addressed remaining disputes after an earlier opinion (Canning I) resolved PSD-11 issues.
- Narrowed issues: adequacy of State Department search (challenged by SAE), Exemption 1 withholdings for records classified after the FOIA request, and Exemption 5 deliberative-process withholdings (challenged by both plaintiffs; Canning moved for one document).
- The Department relied on declarations (Stein, Grafeld) and a Vaughn index describing withheld material and post-request classification steps under Executive Order 13526 § 1.7(d).
- Court found the Department's FOIA search for SAE adequate (searched the F2 FOIA-release database using distinctive quoted phrases and produced matching documents).
- On withholdings: court upheld most Exemption 1 and Exemption 5 claims but identified 7 documents requiring further proof — four documents classified by Stein post-request lacked adequate evidence of being classified "under the direction" of the Under Secretary, and three draft letters to King Abdullah were insufficiently shown to be predecisional/deliberative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of search (SAE) | Search lacked disclosed terms, timeframe, and should have searched more systems | IPS searched F2 using distinctive quoted phrases from article and produced the matching released documents | Search adequate; summary judgment for State Dept. granted |
| Post-request classification (Exemption 1) — procedural compliance with EO 13526 §1.7(d) | Agency must explain what changed to justify post-request classification and show meaningful Under Secretary oversight for each classified doc | Agency provided Vaughn detail on classification rationale; Grafeld personally reviewed many docs and apprised Under Secretary; Stein reviewed four docs under a 2016 notice | Most post-request classifications upheld; but summary judgment denied for four documents classified by Stein because no evidence showing Under Secretary direction/apprisal |
| Ambiguous markings / classification status | Some documents show residual UNCLASSIFIED/SBU markings so status unclear; may be classified only as to requesters | Documents bear CLASSIFIED headers and Vaughn explains portions were newly classified; no evidence they're improperly handled | Court rejects ambiguity argument; markings and Vaughn suffice to show classification |
| Deliberative-process privilege (Exemption 5) — draft letters to Saudi King | Draft letters are final or final in substance (so not predecisional); one document may be final and must be produced | Documents are drafts and reflect predecisional deliberations; withholding protects candid intra-agency communications | For most Exemption 5 withholdings court grants summary judgment for State Dept.; but denies summary judgment as to three draft letters to King Abdullah because record leaves disputed material facts about whether they were predecisional/deliberative |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (general FOIA purpose and informed citizenry principle)
- Milner v. Dep't of Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (exemptions to FOIA are narrowly construed)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir.) (standard for adequate FOIA search)
- Elec. Frontier Found. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 739 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir.) (agency affidavit requirements for Exemption 5)
- NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (deliberative process privilege)