Morley v. Central Intelligence Agency
420 U.S. App. D.C. 477
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- Jefferson Morley, a journalist, filed a FOIA request in 2003 seeking CIA records about officer George E. Joannides, believing they could shed light on the JFK assassination.
- The CIA produced several hundred documents over years of litigation; some of those documents were already available at the National Archives.
- Morley sought attorney’s fees as a "substantially prevailing party" under FOIA; the district court denied fees, finding the produced records provided little public benefit.
- This court previously vacated and remanded for reconsideration under Davy v. CIA; on remand the district court again denied fees, emphasizing the limited value of the actual documents produced.
- The D.C. Circuit now holds the district court erred by evaluating the public-benefit factor based on the value of released documents rather than the potential public value of the requested records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether public-benefit factor looks to potential value of requested records or actual value of produced records | Morley: public-benefit should be assessed by the potential public value of the information sought (per Davy) | CIA: focus on the actual public value of the documents produced | Held: Public-benefit requires an ex ante assessment of the potential public value of the requested records, not primarily the post hoc value of what was produced. |
| Whether a requester’s claim of nexus to the JFK assassination automatically satisfies public-benefit | Morley: his request sought information plausibly central to JFK-related inquiries (Joannides’s ties to DRE and Oswald) | CIA: mere assertion of a link to assassination insufficient; must show actual benefit | Held: Nexus to a matter of public concern (here JFK assassination) can make showing potential public value relatively easy, but bare allegations alone are insufficient — need at least a modest probability of generating useful new information. |
| Effect of documents already in the National Archives on fee award | Morley: he reasonably sought records via FOIA and Archives holdings were not obviously comprehensive or searchable; fees may be warranted even if some documents existed in Archives | CIA: availability in the Archives undercuts public-benefit and fee entitlement | Held: District court must consider segregability of fees for work on archived documents and whether practical difficulties in locating Archives materials justify fee award despite public availability. |
| Whether district court must reassess other fee factors after remand | Morley: court should reconsider remaining factors and rebalance overall fee determination after correcting public-benefit analysis | CIA: (implicit) prior balancing stands | Held: On remand the district court should reconsider the other FOIA fee factors and the overall balance afresh. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davy v. CIA, 550 F.3d 1155 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (public-benefit factor assesses potential public value of requested records)
- Morley v. CIA, 719 F.3d 689 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (prior remand addressing fee analysis error)
- Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (request sought information central to congressional intelligence oversight)
- Nationwide Bldg. Maint., Inc. v. Sampson, 559 F.2d 704 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (purpose of FOIA fee provision: remove incentive for administrative resistance)
- Tax Analysts v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 965 F.2d 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (public availability of documents undermines FOIA-based fee claims)