Mattachine Society of Washington, D.C. v. United States Department of Justice
267 F. Supp. 3d 218
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- In Jan 2013 the Mattachine Society of Washington, D.C. (MSDC) submitted a FOIA request to the FBI seeking documents about Executive Order 10450 and related personnel/investigative files, including communications to or from Warren E. Burger.
- The FBI produced 552 pages and withheld or redacted 583 pages invoking multiple FOIA exemptions; MSDC sued challenging the adequacy of the search and the withholdings.
- The FBI's initial electronic search used a narrow set of terms (e.g., "Executive Order 10450," "Sex Deviate," "Sex Deviate Program") and initially did not search for Warren E. Burger.
- The Court ordered in camera review of several specific withheld/redacted documents (FBI 458–460, 935–938, 1151–1152, 1268–1269) to assess exemption claims.
- The Court found the FBI's search procedures inadequate (too narrow and failing to search for Burger), upheld some withholdings/redactions (Exemptions 7(D) and 3), but ordered production or narrower redactions and an index for other documents (Exemptions 6 and 7(C) partially improper).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of FBI search | Search was too narrow; should include terms used in EO 10450 and related terms (e.g., gay, homosexual, morals, sodomy) and must search for Warren E. Burger | Search terms used were reasonable; broader terms would be unduly burdensome | Court: Search was inadequate — FBI used limited terms, failed to search for Burger, and did not justify burden objections |
| Withholding FBI 458–460 under Exemption 7(D) (confidential sources) | MSDC challenged withholding | FBI asserted documents derived from a foreign government source and were confidential | Court: Withholding under Exemption 7(D) is proper after in camera review (foreign confidential source) |
| Redactions in FBI 935–938 and indexing under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) (privacy) | MSDC argued public interest outweighs privacy and sought less redaction/more disclosure | FBI argued names and identifiers properly withheld to protect privacy | Court: Names/PII are properly redacted, but ordered production of a consistent alphanumeric index to allow cross-reference while protecting privacy |
| Redactions in FBI 1151–1152 and FBI 1268–1269 (Exemptions 6/7(C) and 3) | MSDC challenged overbroad redactions in 1151–1152; sought disclosure of substantive phrases (not names/dates) | FBI defended redactions; for 1268–1269 invoked statutory protection (Exemption 3) | Court: Ordered partial unredaction of specific non-name/date substantive lines in 1152; other redactions OK. Redactions under Exemption 3 for 1268–1269 are proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Weisberg v. Department of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (agency may win summary judgment by showing adequate search and proper withholdings)
- Truitt v. Department of State, 897 F.2d 540 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (search must be reasonably calculated to uncover responsive documents)
- Oglesby v. Department of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (good-faith effort standard for FOIA searches)
- SafeCard Services, Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (presumption of agency good faith in affidavits)
- Iturralde v. Comptroller of the Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (agency affidavits must detail search terms and systems searched)
- Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (Vaughn index and specificity requirements for withheld documents)
- Department of Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165 (1993) (confidentiality standard for Exemption 7(D))
- CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159 (1985) (deference to agency on national security/statutory exemptions)
- Department of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (1976) (FOIA presumption in favor of disclosure)