388 F. Supp. 3d 51
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- IPS filed a FOIA request seeking documents about Pablo Escobar's activities in Central and South America; among responsive material was a six‑page daily intelligence report dated Dec. 21, 1993 covering Europe, South America, and the Middle East.
- The CIA released the South America portion in full but treated the Europe and Middle East portions as separate, nonresponsive "records" and did not process them for disclosure.
- The parties cross‑moved for partial summary judgment on whether composite intelligence reports may be split into multiple records for FOIA processing.
- The government argues portions of multi‑topic documents can be carved into distinct records (even by paragraph or sentence) so only responsive records are processed.
- IPS contends that once any portion of a document is responsive the entire document (at least page‑by‑page) must be treated as a single record under AILA and FOIA practice.
- The Court concluded there is no material factual dispute and, guided by DOJ OIP 1995 guidance, agency practice, and D.C. Circuit precedent, held the government may not slice documents into sentence‑ or paragraph‑level records to avoid AILA’s rule; granted IPS’s cross‑motion and denied CIA’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What constitutes a distinct "record" under FOIA | A document containing any responsive information should be identified as a single record (at least page‑by‑page); pages cannot be split into responsive and nonresponsive bits | A document may be divided into multiple records (by page, paragraph, or sentence) so only responsive records need processing | Court: Records cannot be carved into sentence/paragraph bits; DOJ guidance and AILA require at least page‑level treatment and identification of responsive records first |
| Can agency redefine records mid‑litigation to avoid AILA | Agency should not retroactively redefine records; prior Vaughn indices treated composite reports as single records | Agency attempted to reframe for litigation to treat subparts as nonresponsive records | Court: Midstream redefinition is improper; agency must be consistent and follow FOIA process as interpreted in AILA |
| Are intelligence summaries suitable for piecemeal disclosure | IPS: short summaries are not designed for piecemeal consumption; slicing undermines context | CIA: splitting preserves operational integrity and narrows disclosures | Court: Intelligence summaries are unlikely candidates for sentence/paragraph‑level splitting; context and integrity weigh against piecemeal disclosure |
| Burden and practicality of full processing | IPS: burden does not excuse compliance with FOIA statutory scheme | CIA: fuller processing imposes resource burdens on FOIA offices and intelligence personnel | Court: Acknowledges practical burdens but holds statutory text and AILA control; policy relief is for Congress |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass'n v. Exec. Office for Immigration Review, 830 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (a record containing responsive information cannot be split into responsive and nonresponsive bits)
- Bureau of Nat'l Affairs, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 742 F.2d 1484 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (records are presumptively disclosable unless an exemption applies)
- Parker v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 278 F. Supp. 3d 446 (D.D.C. 2017) (district court enforcing AILA’s rule on indivisibility of records)
- Am. Oversight v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 380 F. Supp. 3d 45 (D.D.C. 2019) (similar holding on treating composite records as single records)
- Judge Rotenberg Educ. Ctr. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 376 F. Supp. 3d 47 (D.D.C. 2019) (rejected post‑hoc redefinition of records during litigation)
- Shapiro v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 247 F. Supp. 3d 53 (D.D.C. 2017) (permits carving of larger documents where discrete page ranges preserve context and integrity)