311 F. Supp. 3d 42
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Daniel DeFraia filed FOIA requests (2014 and 2015) seeking CIA records related to contractors James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen and records "cited in" a Senate Select Committee report on the CIA detention/interrogation program.
- The parties agreed in a Joint Status Report to narrow the 2014 request to CIA contracts (2001–2009) with Jessen, Mitchell, and Mitchell Jessen & Associates, with specified redactions; the CIA produced those contracts.
- The 2015 request sought five categories of documents "cited in" particular footnotes of the Senate Report; the CIA identified 13 documents, produced 12 with redactions, and withheld one in full under FOIA exemptions.
- DeFraia challenged the adequacy of the CIA’s searches and sought additional documents allegedly referenced by the contracts (e.g., deliverables, appendices), and requested in camera review to test the CIA’s Exemption 5 and 6 claims.
- The Court ordered production of a requested Appendix A; the CIA represented it had produced it.
- The Court reviewed agency declarations and the parties’ narrowing agreement and concluded the CIA produced all records required by the narrowed requests and that in camera review was unnecessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of 2014 request | DeFraia contends the original request sought broader “contract information” and documents to which contracts refer; seeks deliverables and related records | CIA says parties narrowed scope by Joint Status Report to specific contracts (with limited redactions) and produced those contracts | Court enforces the parties’ narrowing; CIA produced all responsive contracts; plaintiff’s broader demand denied |
| Whether CIA should search for and produce documents "cited in" or related to contracts (deliverables, appendices) | DeFraia argues the contracts reference documents that are "obvious indications" of responsive records and CIA must follow leads | CIA produced contractual documents; deliverables are not part of the contract and thus not responsive under the narrowed scope | Court: deliverables and other non-contract materials are not required; CIA satisfied obligations for the 2014 narrowed request |
| Scope and adequacy of production for 2015 request (documents "cited in" Senate Report footnotes) | DeFraia argues CIA should do follow-up searches for related material, especially items related to a 2006 Justification | CIA produced the documents that were actually cited in the specified footnotes and limited search to what request asked for | Court holds CIA produced what was requested (documents "cited in" footnotes); no extended follow-up required |
| Request for in camera review over Exemptions 5 and 6 | DeFraia requests in camera inspection to verify Vaughn index and adequacy of redactions/segregation and to test applicability of Exemptions 5 (deliberative) and 6 (privacy) | CIA relies on Shiner declaration describing withheld material, classified/exempt status, and privacy/national-security interests; argues declaration is sufficiently detailed | Court denies in camera review; finds CIA declarations reasonably specific and no evidence of bad faith or need for further review |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burdens)
- Weisberg v. Department of Justice, 627 F.2d 365 (agency must produce documents or show exemptions/unidentifiability)
- Brayton v. Office of U.S. Trade Representative, 641 F.3d 521 (most FOIA cases resolved on summary judgment)
- Oglesby v. United States Department of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (affidavit showing search methodology)
- SafeCard Services, Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (presumption of agency good faith in affidavits)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (affidavits must describe documents/justifications with reasonably specific detail)
- Schrecker v. Department of Justice, 349 F.3d 657 (courts should defer to agency expertise re searches)
- Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (agency must show search reasonably calculated to uncover responsive records)
- Gilman v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 32 F.3d 1 (enforcing narrowing by joint status report)
- Center for Auto Safety v. EPA, 731 F.2d 16 (district court discretion on in camera review)
- Ray v. Turner, 587 F.2d 1187 (in camera inspection discretionary; judge decides necessity)
- Center for National Security Studies v. Department of Justice, 331 F.3d 918 (deference to executive on national security FOIA matters)