Muckrock, LLC v. Cent. Intelligence Agency
300 F. Supp. 3d 108
| D.C. Cir. | 2018Background
- MuckRock LLC submitted multiple FOIA requests to the CIA (2013–2014), including requests for CADRE processing records, classification guidance, objections from telecom/web providers to CIA data practices, and several sets of emails.
- CIA processed most requests, produced many documents with redactions, and withheld three contested documents (Vaughn entries 9, 13, 14) invoking FOIA Exemption 3 under the National Security Act.
- MuckRock sued after some requests were delayed or initially refused; the amended complaint raised ten counts, but only Counts 2, 4, 5, and 7 remained disputed at summary judgment.
- Counts 2 and 5 challenged adequacy of the CIA’s searches. Counts 4 and 5 challenged the Exemption 3 withholdings. Count 7 challenged a purported CIA “per se” policy refusing to process email FOIA requests that lack four specific items (to/from, timeframe, subject).
- Court held evidentiary submissions (agency declarations, Vaughn index, MuckRock templates/letters) and supplemental briefing; CIA re-reviewed some withholdings and released additional material during litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of search for CADRE/processing records (Count 2) | CIA's production was incomplete and formatting differences suggest withheld responsive materials. | Agency declarations explain format differences and that produced screenshots are the correct output; searches were reasonable. | Court held CIA conducted an adequate search and granted summary judgment for CIA. |
| Adequacy of search terms and methods for objections-to-data-gathering request (Count 5) | CIA relied on preselected/overly narrow search terms and should have used subject-matter employees differently. | CIA tasked likely Directorates, ran electronic and manual searches, allowed experts latitude; reprocessing found no additional records. | Court held searches were reasonable and granted summary judgment for CIA. |
| Validity of Exemption 3 withholdings (Counts 4 & 5; Docs 9, 13, 14) | Plaintiff challenged scope of Exemption 3 redactions/withholdings. | CIA relied on National Security Act and declarations showing disclosure would reveal intelligence sources/methods. | Court held withheld material properly falls within Exemption 3/National Security Act and granted judgment for CIA. |
| Claim that CIA has a per se email-processing policy (Count 7) —jurisdiction, ripeness, and merits | MuckRock alleged a consistent template and multiple denials show an ongoing unlawful practice causing delay; seeks declaratory/injunctive relief. | CIA denies any per se policy, argues MuckRock lacks standing, claim is unripe and remedy under FOIA is to sue over future denials. | Court found MuckRock has standing and ripeness; evidence (template and repeated denials) establishes a policy that violates FOIA’s “reasonably describe” requirement; court awarded declaratory relief to MuckRock but refused injunctive relief absent a showing of likely recurrence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Payne Enters., Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (FOIA policy-or-practice claims not mooted by production; courts may grant declaratory/prospective relief to curb practices causing delay)
- Oglesby v. United States Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (search adequacy judged by reasonableness of methods, not by results)
- Iturralde v. Comptroller of the Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (agency search adequacy standard and burden on requester to raise substantial doubt)
- DiBacco v. United States Army, 795 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (National Security Act is a valid Exemption 3 statute for intelligence agencies)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (affidavits may support withholding if they describe justification with reasonably specific detail)
- CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1985) (courts defer to agency determinations about protecting intelligence sources and methods)