National Security Counselors v. Central Intelligence Agency
849 F. Supp. 2d 6
D.D.C.2012Background
- NSC filed two FOIA requests with the CIA about its MDR program; NSC sued after unsatisfactory responses.
- First request (April 23, 2010) sought current CIA MDR documents; CIA processed it via IMS and IRO, locating one responsive item (32 C.F.R. § 1908).
- Second request (Nov. 30, 2010) sought special procedures for MDR review; CIA found no responsive records; NSC appealed and Release Panel denied the appeal as reasonable.
- CIA’s search for Request No. F-2010-01033 was limited to the Director’s Area; the search produced only one document; the final response issued May 24, 2011.
- Legal standard: FOIA summary judgment requires a reasonable search and adequate affidavits detailing what was searched, by whom, and how; an agency is not required to search every system but must act in good faith.
- Court’s ruling: CIA’s search for Request No. F-2010-01033 inadequate due to lack of detail; scope of “current” potentially misconstrued; for Request No. F-2011-00396 ambiguity requires clarification; judgments denied without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of CIA’s search for Request No. F-2010-01033 | NSC argues search was under-detailed and incomplete | CIA asserts reasonable, directorate-level search conducted | CIA’s search failure denied summary judgment on this request |
| Scope of term 'current' in Request No. F-2010-01033 | NSC contends scope included documents under prior MDR orders still in use | CIA limited to MDR materials under EO 13,292 as of 2010 | Court: scope may have been unreasonably limited; needs clarification; denial without prejudice |
| Ambiguity in 'the then Director of Central Intelligence' for Request No. F-2011-00396 | NSC would accept broader interpretation; if limited to Deutch/Tenet, issue resolved | CIA permissibly interprets phrase; no documents located | Court: ambiguity requires clarification; denial without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (agency affidavits suffice if detailed about scope and method of search)
- Steinberg v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 23 F.3d 548 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (minimum detail: what records were searched, by whom, and how)
- Oglesby v. United States Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (requires good faith, reasonable search; not every system need be searched)
- Morley v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (insufficient declaration if it gives only a general explanation)
- Weisberg v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (search must be reasonably calculated to uncover relevant documents)
- Banks v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 538 F. Supp. 2d 228 (D.D.C. 2008) (adequacy of search hinges on specificity of search terms and process)