Davis v. U.S. Department of the Air Force
4:15-cv-00068
| D. Mont. | Feb 8, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Kenneth R. Davis Jr. sued under the Freedom of Information Act seeking a classified AFOSI Counterintelligence Note (the "Seven Surfers" Note) about an AFOSI investigation into alleged espionage by Davis.
- Davis requested the Note on May 15, 2014, asserting it was material to a state-court prosecution involving third parties who had accused him of espionage.
- The Air Force (AFOSI) withheld the Note in full, invoking FOIA exemptions 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) (classified national security material) and (b)(7)(E) (law-enforcement techniques/guidelines).
- The Air Force filed for summary judgment and submitted redacted material and declarations supporting its withholdings; Davis did not oppose summary judgment for the Air Force.
- Davis alternatively asked the court to declare, as a matter of law, that AFOSI’s investigation found the espionage allegations against him groundless; the court noted Davis has access to the documents and may use them in state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Note is exempt from disclosure under FOIA § 552(b)(1) (classified national security information) | Davis did not contest exemption but sought a legal finding that the investigation was groundless | The Air Force contends the Note is classified under Executive Order 13526 and thus exempt | Court granted summary judgment for Air Force; (b)(1) protection applied as supported by agency declarations |
| Whether the Note is exempt under FOIA § 552(b)(7)(E) (law-enforcement techniques/guidelines) | Davis did not oppose withholding; sought substantive finding about investigation outcome instead | AFOSI argued disclosure would reveal investigative techniques and frustrate counterintelligence and law-enforcement missions | Court accepted AFOSI’s showing and granted summary judgment under (b)(7)(E) |
| Whether the court should enter a judicial finding that AFOSI’s investigation found accusations against Davis groundless | Davis argued the record (and a report he submitted) shows the allegations were groundless and asked for a legal finding | Air Force relied on the classified record and redactions; argued withholding is proper and did not concede such a legal finding | Court declined to enter that legal finding; noted Davis can present the unclassified material he possesses in state court for factfinder consideration |
| Whether summary judgment is appropriate on the administrative record and declarations | Davis agreed summary judgment for the Air Force was appropriate based on the submitted record | Air Force maintained its declarations and redacted note suffice for summary judgment | Court granted the Air Force’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment for defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (recognizes FOIA disclosure as the Act’s dominant objective but allows narrowly construed exemptions)
- Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir.) (agency bears burden to justify FOIA withholdings and should provide sufficient declarations)
- Ctr. for Nat. Sec. Stud. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 331 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir.) (courts defer to executive in FOIA matters implicating national security)