Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Justice
Civil Action No. 2013-1961
| D.D.C. | Nov 7, 2017Background
- EPIC filed a FOIA request (Oct. 2013) seeking reports and records about past surreptitious use of pen register/trap-and-trace (PR/TT) authority under FISA; DOJ processed and referred portions to FBI and NSA.
- Litigation narrowed the dispute from 92 documents to six: Westlaw printouts attached to a classified FISC brief (Document 68) and five Semi-Annual Reports to Congress (SARs, Documents 124–127, 129).
- DOJ invoked FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, and 7(E); FBI and NSA submitted classified, in camera declarations supporting Exemption 3 (statutory withholding) and Exemption 1 (classification under E.O. 13526).
- EPIC argued DOJ acted in bad faith, misapplied classification and Exemption 3 (procedural challenge because NSD created/controlled records), and failed to disclose reasonably segregable material.
- The court conducted in camera review of classified submissions and unredacted materials, found most withholdings justified under Exemptions 3 and 1, but identified several redactions requiring supplemental DOJ explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 3 statute(s) apply to withheld material | EPIC: DOJ belatedly invoked Exemption 3; NSD created/controlled records so FBI/NSA affidavits insufficient; waiver/bad faith | DOJ: Statutes (50 U.S.C. §3024(i)(1); 50 U.S.C. §3605; 18 U.S.C. §798) are valid Exemption 3 withholding statutes; records were referred to FBI/NSA per 28 C.F.R. §16.4 and those agencies may properly invoke Exemption 3 | Held: Exemption 3 applies; FBI/NSA properly invoked it after referral; no waiver or bad faith found |
| Whether material is properly withheld under Exemption 1 (classification) | EPIC: Summaries of legal opinions and publicly available Westlaw printouts cannot be "properly classified" | DOJ: Classified under E.O. 13526; material pertains to intelligence activities/sources/methods; context (attachments to classified FISC brief) can render otherwise public items classified | Held: Exemption 1 applies; material properly classified under E.O. 13526, including Westlaw printouts when considered in context |
| Segregability — whether DOJ released all reasonably segregable, non-exempt material | EPIC: Portions (legal opinions, SAR summaries) should be reasonably segregable and released | DOJ: Redactions are narrowly tailored; release of any portion would risk disclosure (compilation/context, searchable public databases) | Held: Court found no reasonably segregable material for most withholdings after in camera review; DOJ met burden, except for several redactions needing clarification |
| Adequacy of DOJ's public/supplemental explanations for specific redactions | EPIC: DOJ's public declarations are conclusory and inadequate; some redactions mislabeled outside Remaining Challenges | DOJ: Provided classified declarations and in camera materials; will supplement explanations where necessary | Held: Court required DOJ to submit supplemental declarations addressing mischaracterized or unexplained redactions (three-plus items identified) |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164 (explains FOIA’s transparency purpose)
- Milner v. Dep’t of the Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (FOIA exemptions are exclusive and narrowly construed)
- DiBacco v. U.S. Army, 795 F.3d 178 (Section 102A(i)(1) is an Exemption 3 withholding statute)
- ACLU v. Dep’t of Def., 628 F.3d 612 (agency bears burden to justify exemptions; deference to national-security affidavits)
- Hayden v. NSA, 608 F.2d 1381 (in camera review and protection of classified info)
- Larson v. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857 (classification deference and standards under E.O. 13526)
- Ctr. for Nat’l Sec. Studies v. DOJ, 331 F.3d 918 (compilations can be classified when combined data reveal sensitive associations)
- Halperin v. CIA, 629 F.2d 144 (individual pieces of intelligence may reveal sensitive picture when aggregated)