311 F.Supp.3d 42
D.D.C.2018Background
- Plaintiff Daniel DeFraia filed FOIA requests (2014 and 2015) seeking CIA contracts with contractors James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen and records "cited in" specified Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report footnotes concerning the CIA’s detention and interrogation program.
- Parties executed a Joint Status Report narrowing the 2014 request to contracts between the CIA and Mitchell/Jessen/Mitchell Jessen & Associates (2001–2009) and agreeing to specified redactions; the 2015 request was processed as written.
- CIA produced the agreed-upon contracts (with redactions) and identified 13 documents responsive to the 2015 request, producing 12 with redactions and withholding one in full under FOIA exemptions.
- DeFraia moved for summary judgment arguing the CIA’s searches were inadequate, that the CIA failed to follow leads to additional responsive records (e.g., deliverables, appendices), and requested in camera review to test Exemptions 5 and 6.
- The court ordered production of Appendix A after DeFraia raised it; the CIA later confirmed Appendix A had already been produced.
- The court concluded the CIA produced all records within the narrowed, binding scope and that the agency’s declarations adequately supported the exemptions—denying DeFraia’s request for broader searches and for in camera review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of 2014 FOIA request | DeFraia contends original broader request ("all contract information") requires production of contract-related materials beyond the contracts themselves (e.g., deliverables, applicable documents). | CIA says parties’ Joint Status Report narrows the request to specified contracts (2001–2009) and CIA produced those contracts with agreed redactions. | Court enforces the Joint Status Report; CIA produced all responsive contracts. |
| Adequacy of CIA's search / follow-up on leads | DeFraia argues CIA failed to follow clear leads indicating additional responsive records (e.g., appendices, deliverables). | CIA contends the universe of relevant documents is narrow under the agreed scope and that it uncovered and produced those documents. | Court finds CIA demonstrated it produced all legally required records under the narrowed requests; no further searches required. |
| 2015 Request "cited in" footnotes scope | DeFraia asserts CIA should search beyond items literally cited, especially for documents related to a 2006 Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition. | CIA argues the request sought items "cited in" three specific footnotes and it produced documents that were cited. | Court holds CIA complied by providing the documents cited in the footnotes; no obligation to search beyond the cited items. |
| In camera review and FOIA Exemptions 5 & 6 | DeFraia seeks in camera review to test CIA’s Exemption 5 (deliberative) and Exemption 6 (privacy) redactions and to verify segregation of nonexempt material. | CIA relies on detailed declaration (Vaughn-type descriptions) asserting Exemptions 1, 3, 5, and 6 where appropriate and argues the affidavit is sufficiently specific given national-security context. | Court denies in camera review; finds CIA’s affidavit adequately specific and that exemptions were properly invoked; no evidence of bad faith or need for in camera inspection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment procedure and burdens)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FBI, 522 F.3d 364 (FOIA disclosure requirement)
- Weisberg v. Department of Justice, 627 F.2d 365 (agency must produce or show exemption for requested documents)
- Oglesby v. Department of Justice, 920 F.2d 61 (agency affidavits describing searches)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (requirements for affidavits justifying nondisclosure)
- Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (agency must show search reasonably calculated to uncover responsive documents)
- Center for Auto Safety v. EPA, 731 F.2d 16 (discretion on in camera review)
- Center for National Security Studies v. Department of Justice, 331 F.3d 918 (deference to executive on national security FOIA matters)
- Ray v. Turner, 587 F.2d 1187 (in camera inspection standard)