Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Civil Action No. 2017-0163
| D.D.C. | Dec 18, 2017Background
- EPIC requested the classified ODNI Intelligence Community assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election; ODNI had already published a declassified version containing conclusions but not sources/methods.
- ODNI located one responsive classified report and denied EPIC’s FOIA request in full under Exemptions 1 (classified information) and 3 (statutory protection of intelligence sources/methods under 50 U.S.C. § 3024(i)(1)).
- ODNI submitted declarations from senior NIC/ODNI officials explaining that release of any redacted or unredacted portions (including metadata like length) could enable foreign intelligence services to infer U.S. sources, methods, and collection capabilities.
- EPIC argued ODNI must release reasonably segregable non-exempt portions, that some material was already declassified/officially acknowledged, and asked for in camera review.
- The Court reviewed the agency affidavits de novo, credited the agency’s plausible national-security justifications, found Exemptions 1 and 3 applicable to the entire document, and denied in camera review and EPIC’s cross-motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 1 permits withholding the report | EPIC: portions are unclassified/declassified and cannot remain classified when in the classified report | ODNI: aggregation/context can create classified associations; classification is logical/plausible | Court: Exemption 1 applies; agency justification credited |
| Whether Exemption 3 (National Security Act) covers the report | EPIC: agency declarations too vague to show entire report reveals sources/methods | ODNI: statute applies and disclosures (even volume/placement) could reveal sources/methods; agency expertise merits deference | Court: Exemption 3 applies to entire report; agency met its burden |
| Whether any reasonably segregable non-exempt portions must be produced | EPIC: some content already declassified; those portions are segregable | ODNI: even released lines, in context or with metadata, would enable adversaries to infer protected information | Court: no reasonably segregable portions; full withholding lawful |
| Whether "official acknowledgment" by prior declassification waives exemptions | EPIC: declassified public report officially acknowledges content, so redacted classified report should be released | ODNI: declassified version does not reveal placement/format/volume; EPIC hasn't shown exact match/as-specific disclosure | Court: EPIC failed Fitzgibbon test; no waiver; withholding stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159 (deference to intelligence agencies to protect sources/methods)
- Larson v. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857 (agency affidavits receive substantial weight in FOIA/classification contexts)
- Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370 (agency justification is sufficient if logical or plausible)
- Afshar v. Dep’t of State, 702 F.2d 1125 (requirements for official acknowledgment)
- Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755 (official-acknowledgment/Fitzgibbon test)
- Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Office Dir. Nat’l Intelligence, 982 F. Supp. 2d 21 (precedent upholding nondisclosure of metadata/volume for national-security reasons)
- Larson v. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857 (aggregation/context can justify higher classification)