Institute for Policy Studies v. United States Central Intelligence Agency
885 F. Supp. 2d 120
D.D.C.2012Background
- IPS filed a FOIA request to CIA seeking all records mentioning or relating to PEPES, Pablo Escobar, and related terms; CIA produced some records and stated a search was conducted and later supplemented.
- IPS appealed the initial response for lack of a timely determination and broader search; CIA provided additional records after litigation and updated Vaughn Indices.
- This FOIA case proceeded with cross-motions for summary judgment; issues included the adequacy of the CIA search, processing delays, and the application of FOIA exemptions.
- Court held that CIA’s initial search was inadequate and ordered a supplemental search across all five directorates, including a search for Pablo Escobar; court also addressed Glomar responses and multiple exemptions.
- The court analyzed exemptions 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 (A–F) and related procedural points, and rejected some arguments while granting summary judgment on others; declaratory relief and APA claims were resolved accordingly.
- Final order directs defendant to perform the plaintiff’s requested search and grants partial relief consistent with the memorandum opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of CIA search | IPS contends search was incomplete, limited to prior records and two directorates; did not search for 'Pablo Escobar' | CIA argues initial search covered relevant records; DA and other directorates involved; Glomar and exemptions justify scope | Court found search inadequate; ordered full search across remaining directorates and term search for Pablo Escobar |
| Use of Glomar response | IPS argues Glomar as to Pablo Escobar is improper since records exist | Glomar justified to protect national security and sources/methods | Court rejected Glomar as to Pablo Escobar and required search of records relating to Escobar |
| Exemption 1 applicability | Redactions and withholding were overbroad and not sufficiently described | Redactions properly classified under Exec. Order 12958; sufficient justification in Vaughn indices | Exemption 1 upheld for the redacted material presented; specific documents properly withheld |
| Exemption 2/3/6/7 usages | Opposes breadth of exemptions; seeks broader disclosure | Exemptions narrowly construed; redactions justified to protect privacy, sources, and methods | Court upheld exemptions 2, 3, 6, 7 (including 7(E), 7(D), and 7(F)) as to the withheld items |
| Declaratory relief and APA claim | Seeks declaratory relief for FOIA delays and APA violations | FOIA provides adequate remedies; APA relief not available for final agency action | Declaratory relief denied for fee waiver and delay; APA claim denied; FOIA remedies deemed adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Steinberg v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 23 F.3d 548 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (purposeful focus on reasonableness of search; not all documents must be found)
- Weisberg v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (reasonableness of search; burden on agency to show good faith)
- Oglesby v. United States Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (declaration sufficiency; good faith effort to search)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (affidavits presumed to be in good faith; cannot be rebutted by pure speculation)
- Maynard v. Central Intelligence Agency, 986 F.2d 547 (2d Cir. 1993) (burden on plaintiff challenging search; adverse inference standard)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. United States Dep’t of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (segregability and detailed justification for withholding)