Mobley v. Central Intelligence Agency
924 F. Supp. 2d 24
D.D.C.2013Background
- Mobley and Nzinga Islam sue four agencies under FOIA/PA to obtain records about Mobley’s 2010 Yemen abduction, detention, and related U.S. involvement.
- CIA, State, Defense, and Justice each issued final determinations; CIA’s initial response claimed material was fully deniable/withheld; amended letters later stated no responsive records for CIA open/affiliated records.
- State conducted extensive searches, released most records and withheld some; some records referred to the Army’s OPMG, which withheld them.
- The Defense/DI A path involved the DIA locating 41 OSC records referred to CIA, with six fully withheld; a separate DIA path involved expedited processing and open-source materials.
- FBI processed Mobley’s FOIA request and released 85 pages with portions redacted; plaintiffs challenge searches and withholding; court grants summary judgment for Defense, State, and Justice, and in part for CIA, while requiring CIA to perform supplemental OSC search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of CIA search for responsive records | Mobley argues OSC not searched; nonpublic OSC records may exist | CIA policy treats OSC as public unless separately requested; burden on plaintiff to specify | CIA must search OSC for nonpublic responsive records; partial grant of summary judgment for CIA on other search aspects |
| Propriety of CIA and DIA Glomar responses | CIA/DIA allegedly waived Glomar; Exemption 1 classification procedures deficient | Glomar responses properly protect classified/nonpublic information; timeline not required | Glomar responses upheld under Exemption 1; no waiver; procedural/t substantive bases sustained |
| Legitimacy of CIA and DIA withholding determinations | Exemptions misapplied (e.g., National Security Act, Exemption 1, etc.); overbroad or unsupported | Declarations establish applicability of Exemptions (1, 3) and related statutes; classifications reasonable | CIA’s and DIA’s exemptions justified; withholdings sustained where properly supported; segregability findings upheld |
| State Department withholding under Privacy Act and Exemptions | Exemption 1, 6, 7(C) and Exemption (d)(5) misapplied; FOIA/PA segregation inadequate | State’s affidavits explain classifications and redactings; exemptions applied consistently; exemptions 7(E) justified | State’s withholdings upheld; Privacy Act exclusions and Exemption 7(E) sustaining; segregability findings adequate |
| FBI search and exemptions under FOIA/Privacy Act | Unsearched drives/emails; prior disclosures; privacy redactions too broad | CRS/ELSUR/search scope reasonable; Exemptions 1, 6, 7(C) and j(2) properly invoked; no official disclosure of contested document | FBI search and exemptions upheld; but certain comparative issues rejected; document-specific challenges resolved in favor of government |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Glomar and exemption 1 reasoning in national security FOIA cases)
- ACLU v. Dep't of Defense, 628 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (deference to agency affidavits; exemption standard applied to DOD matters)
- Campbell v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 164 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (agency must search beyond its preferred record systems when leads exist)
- Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (official acknowledgement requires precise public disclosure to waive Glomar)
- Kowalczyk v. Dep't of Justice, 73 F.3d 389 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (FOIA search obligations hinge on reasonableness, not exhaustiveness)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (segregability burden framework in Mead Data precedents)
- Loving v. Dep't of Def., 550 F.3d 32 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (segregability approach allowing Vaughn-index plus declaration sufficiency)
- Johnson v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys, 310 F.3d 771 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (segregability by detailed Vaughn index and affidavits)