Mobley v. Central Intelligence Agency
420 U.S. App. D.C. 108
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Sharif Mobley, a U.S. citizen detained in Yemen since Jan. 2010, sought records about his abduction, U.S. agency involvement, and all records referring to him via FOIA and the Privacy Act from FBI, CIA, DoD, and State.
- Mobley filed two district-court suits (the “FBI case” and the “CIA case”) after agency responses and partial disclosures; the FBI released 85 pages with redactions and asserted FOIA and Privacy Act exemptions; CIA issued a Glomar response and later conducted supplemental searches.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the agencies (Feb. 7 and June 7, 2013), ordered limited supplemental CIA searches, denied Mobley’s Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration, and consolidated the cases; Mobley appealed.
- A central procedural question was appellate jurisdiction: whether Mobley’s Rule 59(e) motion (filed June 17, 2013) tolled appeal deadlines for the earlier FBI judgment given the district court’s stay of the FBI case pending resolution of the CIA case.
- On the merits, issues included adequacy of the FBI search (which systems were searched, whether e-mails or named record systems were required), official-acknowledgment waiver of classification/Glomar responses, proper post-hoc classification/sub-delegation, and applicability of Privacy Act exemptions for FBI and DIA records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction/timeliness of appeal from FBI order | Mobley: his Rule 59(e) motion was timely because the district court stayed the FBI case until CIA resolution | Agencies: appeal time ran from Feb. 7 (Rule 58 entry) and Mobley’s motion was untimely | Court: exercised jurisdiction — unique-circumstances doctrine and forfeiture/waiver theories render Rule 59(e) timely and preserved appeal rights |
| Adequacy of FBI FOIA search | Mobley: FBI should have searched specified drives, field-office systems, and e-mails | FBI: searched Central Records System (CRS) and ELSUR; claimed requested systems were captured by CRS or obsolete/redundant | Court: FBI declarations were detailed and credible; search was adequate; requester cannot dictate search scope absent clear leads |
| Official-acknowledgment waiver / Glomar waiver | Mobley: prior disclosures (including a Yemeni court filing and CIA’s initial letter) waived Exemption 1/Glomar | Agencies: disclosures were not official or were clerical errors; inter-agency/foreign disclosures don’t waive exemptions | Court: no waiver — plaintiff failed to show official, documented public disclosure; CIA’s first letter was a mistake and did not satisfy waiver test |
| Privacy Act applicability / Exemptions | Mobley: withheld FBI/CIA/DIA materials are subject to Privacy Act and should be disclosed | Agencies: FBI invoked (j)(2) law-enforcement exemption; DIA materials not in a system of records; CIA referrals exempt | Court: FBI met Doe standard for (j)(2); DIA database not a system of records; CIA withholdings properly analyzed |
Key Cases Cited
- Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir.) (standard of review for FOIA summary judgment)
- DiBacco v. U.S. Army, 795 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (search-adequacy principles)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (affidavit sufficiency and search-reasonableness standard)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (presumption of agency good faith in affidavits)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007) (limits on equitable exceptions to jurisdictional timing rules)
- Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (official-acknowledgment waiver test)
- Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (burden on requester to prove official disclosure waived exemptions)