Moore v. Central Intelligence Agency
399 U.S. App. D.C. 63
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Moore FOIA-requested records about Valfells Sr.; CIA issued Glomar response (neither confirmed nor denied) relying on exemptions (b)(1),(b)(3).
- FBI later provided redacted FBI Report with CIA-originated information redacted; CIA acknowledged redactions to protect sources/methods but did not identify specific records.
- District Court granted CIA summary judgment; held FBI redaction does not waive Glomar and DiMaio declaration insufficient to identify responsive records.
- Moore sued challenging Glomar; district court held no official acknowledgment of specific records and no waiver.
- Moore appeals arguing CIA officially acknowledged existence of some records and thus cannot Glomar; government argues no specific official acknowledgment.
- Court reviews whether official acknowledgment waives Glomar and if DiMaio declaration constitutes such acknowledgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CIA’s Glomar response is waived by official acknowledgment. | Moore argues CIA acknowledged CIA-originated information in the FBI Report. | CIA did not identify a specific record matching the request that has been officially acknowledged. | Glomar not waived; no specific, publicly acknowledged record identified. |
| Whether DiMaio declaration constitutes official acknowledgment. | DiMaio shows CIA-originated info redacted from FBI Report. | Declaration does not name specific records; not sufficient to waive Glomar. | DiMaio declaration insufficient to constitute official acknowledgment. |
| Whether Moore identified a publicly acknowledged record that matches the request. | Efforts show existence of CIA-originated information related to Valfells Sr. | No specific, publicly acknowledged record matches the request. | No matching officially acknowledged record identified; Glomar defense preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (official acknowledgment must match a specific publicly disclosed record)
- Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (strict test for disclosure when officially acknowledged)
- Wilner v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, 592 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2009) (official acknowledgment must cover existence of specific records)
- Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 628 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (initial burden to show public-domain duplicate information)
- Frugone v. CIA, 169 F.3d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (only the agency can waive its exemption rights)
- Gardels v. CIA, 689 F.2d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (Glomar proper when existence is exempt from disclosure)