Hall v. Central Intelligence Agency
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108503
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs Hall and AIM requested CIA records about POWs/MIAs from Vietnam era under FOIA.
- Judge Kennedy’s 2009 Order required extensive CIA search/production and disclosure of systems/documents.
- CIA released thousands of pages but issues remained including Item 5, Item 7, referrals, and exemptions.
- Court denied some CIA motions and granted in part plaintiffs’ cross-motions; discovery and in-camera review denied.
- This memorandum resolves remaining disputes on searches, referrals, exemptions, segregation, and discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must CIA search all 1,711 names across all systems? | CADRE and archives likely contain responsive records; name-only search is inadequate. | Searching beyond the provided identifying info is burdensome and unnecessary. | CIA must search all 1,711 names in all systems likely to produce responsive documents. |
| Is CIA obligated to perform Item 7 searches for all records of other agency searches? | Responds to POW/MIAs requests include searches by congressional/Executive bodies. | Item 7 refers to previous FOIA requests; not required to search anew for congressional requests. | CIA must search for all records on or pertaining to any search by other agencies; plaintiffs’ cross-motion granted on Item 7. |
| Did CIA adequately handle referrals/coordination documents (Items 3–5)? | CIA failed to process referrals and failed to provide full coordination records. | CIA processed referrals/coordination; disclosures provided as appropriate. | CIA fulfilled its burden on Item 3/4/5 coordination/referrals; summary judgment for CIA on these items. |
| Do exemption 1 and exemption 3 withholdings remain properly justified? | Exemption 1/3 withholdings lack sufficient justification and markings. | Declarations provide sufficient basis; records properly classified/withheld. | CIA exemption 1 withholdings upheld; exemption 3 withholdings upheld (including 50 U.S.C. § 435 issue pending issue). |
| Are exemption 6 withholdings, and segregability determinations, properly justified? | Names and certain data should be disclosed; privacy interests overblown. | Privacy rights outweigh public interest for many items; some names require protection. | Partial grant of CIA on exemption 6; names of individuals require disclosure; segregability satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. Dep’t of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (de novo review of exemptions; detailed descriptions needed)
- Weisberg v. DOJ, 705 F.2d 365 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (adequacy of agency search and stringent deference to agency affidavits)
- Oglesby v. DOJ, 920 F.2d 457 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (reasonable search for records; scope of systems to search)
- Campbell v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 164 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (reasonableness of FOIA searches and term-based approaches)
- Larson v. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (exemption 1/3 specifics; exemption analysis guidance)
- Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. DOJ, 816 F.2d 730 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (public-interest/public-disclosure standards in FOIA exemptions)
- Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1124 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (classification affidavits and rationale in national security FOIA cases)