778 F. Supp. 2d 28
D.D.C.2011Background
- PHR filed FOIA action against DOD and components DIA, USSOCOM, and CENTCOM to obtain documents about a Dasht-e-Leili mass gravesite in Afghanistan.
- Defendants produced some documents; the parties cross-moved for summary judgment on exemptions and search adequacy.
- The court, in a December 30, 2009 memorandum, found some exemptions warranted and ordered in camera review for Joint Staff and DIA documents.
- After in camera review, the court granted summary judgment for the Joint Staff and DIA on the withholding issues.
- CENTCOM's search was deemed too narrow; the court ordered a supplemental search covering a broader time period and allowed renewed briefing.
- CENTCOM conducted a supplemental search, produced three additional documents with redactions, and the matter proceeded to renewed cross-motions; the court now addresses the sufficiency of the supplemental search and the exemptions on the three documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CENTCOM's supplemental search was adequate under FOIA | PHR contends the search was incomplete and not sufficiently documented. | CENTCOM's declaration details locations, search terms, and methods; adequate under controlling law. | Search deemed reasonably adequate; denial of cross-motion on this issue. |
| Whether the redactions in documents 1 and 3 were properly withheld under Exemption 1 (and related exemptions) | PHR argues the exemption application is insufficiently particularized. | Scott declaration provides sufficient justification linking redactions to Exemption 1; in camera review unnecessary. | Exemption 1 and related exemptions properly applied; no in camera review warranted. |
| Whether other exemptions (Exemptions 2, 3, and 6) were properly applied | PHR challenges only Exemption 1; relevance of other exemptions is not argued by PHR. | Exemptions 2, 3, and 6 properly invoked for internal contact info, statute-based disclosures, and privacy interests. | Exemptions 2, 3, and 6 properly applied; no disclosure required for those portions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C.Cir. 1990) (standard for adequate FOIA search showing reasonable efforts)
- Weisberg v. DOJ, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C.Cir. 1983) (search must be reasonably calculated to uncover relevant documents)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C.Cir. 1977) (requires careful delineation of exemptions to passages)
- Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 97 F.3d 575 (D.C.Cir. 1996) (in camera review as last resort)
- PHE, Inc. v. Dep't of Justice, 983 F.2d 248 (D.C.Cir. 1993) (national security context and FOIA exemptions)
- Founding Church of Scientology v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, 610 F.2d 824 (D.C.Cir. 1979) (FOIA search adequacy and scope considerations)
- Schiller v. NLRB, 964 F.2d 1205 (D.C.Cir. 1992) (exemption tailoring and redaction labeling)
- Physicians for Human Rights v. United States Dep't of Defense, 675 F. Supp. 2d 149 (D.D.C. 2009) (prior decision on similar FOIA search and exemptions)
- Maynard v. CIA, 986 F.2d 547 (1st Cir. 1993) (disclosure of identity of FOIA personnel not required)
- Ray v. Turner, 587 F.2d 1187 (D.C.Cir. 1978) (caution against routine in camera reviews)