Background

• Leopold, a FOIA requester, sought access to the CIA's internal study about its former detention and interrogation program, the so-called Panetta Review, which the CIA refused to disclose under FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, and 5.
• The CIA previously formed a Special Review Team (SRT) to summarize and organize millions of pages for SSCI review; the project was abandoned after about a year and its drafts remained incomplete.
• Senator Udall publicly referenced the internal study, prompting Leopold's December 2013 FOIA request and a request for expedited processing, which the CIA did not timely respond to.
• Leopold narrowed his request to the internal study itself, excluding documents merely mentioning the study, and the CIA maintained it sought the most current version of the study.
• The CIA contends the Reviews are properly withheld in their entirety under Exemption 5 (deliberative-process privilege), with possible cites to Exemptions 1 and 3; Leopold cross-moved for partial disclosure, arguing for severability and non-deliberative character in parts.
• The court independently evaluates Exemption 5, concluding the Reviews are predecisional and deliberative and may be withheld in full; no reasonably segregable portions are found.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• United States v. Weber Aircraft Corp., 465 U.S. 792 (1984) (Exemption 5 encompasses civil-discovery rules)
• Martin v. Office of Special Counsel, 819 F.2d 1181 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (Exemption 5 includes attorney work-product and deliberative privileges)
• NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975) (Exemption 5 encompasses core privileges including deliberative process)
• Coastal States Gas Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 617 F.2d 854 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (Deliberative-process privilege applies to predecisional material)
• Department of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1 (2001) (Deliberative process safeguarding internal agency communications)
• Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice, 917 F.2d 571 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Context for deliberative-process protection in FOIA)
• Access Reports v. Department of Justice, 926 F.2d 1192 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (Deliberative-process scope—no need for a single discrete decision)
• Mapother v. Dep’t of Justice, 3 F.3d 1533 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (Deliberative material includes selection and organization of facts)
• Montrose Chemical Corp. of Cal. v. Train, 491 F.2d 63 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (Summaries and evaluations may be protected when they reflect policy-oriented judgment)
• Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice, 677 F.2d 931 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (Distinguishes purely factual material from deliberative process where fact selection serves policy)
• Nat’l Sec. Archive v. CIA, 752 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Agency deliberative process preserved even if project abandoned)