53 F. Supp. 3d 154
D.D.C.2014Background
- Katelyn Sack (requester) submitted multiple FOIA requests (2010–2011) to CIA, DIA, DODIG, and FBI seeking records about polygraph programs, IG investigations, training, evaluations, and agency procedures; she sued after unsatisfactory agency responses.
- Parties stipulated to the adequacy of agency searches for many requests and dismissed several counts; remaining disputes concerned (1) CIA’s refusal to search one broad request and (2) various withholdings/redactions by CIA, DIA, DODIG, and FBI under FOIA exemptions.
- CIA refused to search a request for “documents pertaining in whole or in part (all years, all classifications) to a list of closed Inspector General investigations and reports,” citing unreasonable burden; Sack did not narrow the request or administratively appeal.
- CIA withheld portions of several polygraph-related documents under Exemptions 1 and 3 (invoking the National Security Act and the CIA Act); court upheld some National Security Act withholdings but found CIA’s invocation of the CIA Act insufficiently particular in places.
- DIA and DODIG withheld polygraph-related materials under Exemptions 3 and 7(E) (protecting intelligence sources/methods and law-enforcement techniques) and withheld thermal images under Exemption 6; court upheld those withholdings and found the privacy and circumvention rationales adequate.
- Sack moved to rescind a prior stipulation dismissing Count Fifteen (OLC withheld records); court treated this as a Rule 60(b) motion and denied relief, finding no clear-and-convincing evidence of fraud or misconduct by OLC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CIA was obligated to search Count One (overbroad request for records “pertaining in whole or in part” to lists of closed OIG investigations) | Sack: request was limited to records that reference a list of closed OIG investigations and thus searchable; CIA should have searched. | CIA: phrase “pertaining in whole or in part” is vague and would require an unreasonably burdensome, all‑encompassing search across systems. | Held: CIA reasonably declined; request was overbroad and burdensome absent requester narrowing. |
| Validity of CIA’s Exemption 3/NSA (50 U.S.C. §3024(i)(1)) withholdings for polygraph program materials | Sack: Vaughn descriptions were generic and conclusory; NSA invocation insufficiently particular. | CIA: materials reveal intelligence sources/methods (polygraph program details, techniques, facilities, empirical data) and courts must give deference. | Held: CIA met its burden under NSA for listed withholdings; withholdings related to polygraph sources/methods upheld. |
| Scope and application of CIA Act (50 U.S.C. §3507) as Exemption 3 basis | Sack: §3507’s phrase “of personnel employed by the Agency” limits protection to personnel-related items; CIA overreads statute to cover broader organizational information. | CIA: reads statute more broadly to exempt organization/functions and other internal information. | Held: Court adopts narrower reading—§3507 protects primarily personnel/internal-structure information; CIA’s invocation requires clearer, document‑specific descriptions to justify non‑disclosure. |
| DIA/DODIG withholdings (Exemptions 3, 6, 7(E)) and segregability of withheld material | Sack: some descriptions are vague; images and countermeasure material should be releasable or segregable. | DIA/DODIG: withheld materials concern intelligence/law-enforcement methods, training, and identifiable images; release would risk circumvention and invade privacy; they reviewed for segregability. | Held: Withholdings under Exemptions 3, 6, and 7(E) for DIA/DODIG were adequately justified and segregability analysis satisfied for most items; full withholding of some DODIG documents lacked adequate specificity on segregability and requires more detail. |
| Motion to rescind stipulated dismissal of Count Fifteen (OLC) under Rule 60(b) | Sack: OLC misrepresented consultations and failed to recognize a CIA-published 1967 memo, suggesting possible misrepresentation re: withholdings. | Defendants: dismissal was voluntary; OLC’s oversight was inadvertent; no fraud shown. | Held: Motion denied—Sack failed to show fraud or misconduct by clear-and-convincing evidence; stipulation stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159 (deference to CIA that disclosure may reveal intelligence sources/methods)
- Berman v. CIA, 501 F.3d 1136 (broad NSA protection for intelligence sources/methods)
- Larson v. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857 (deference to agency declarations re: national security withholdings)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (segregability principle)
- Juarez v. Dep’t of Justice, 518 F.3d 54 (segregability and agency specificity for full withholdings)
- Milner v. Dep’t of Navy, 131 S. Ct. 1259 (interpretation of term “personnel” in FOIA exemptions)
- Mayer Brown LLP v. IRS, 562 F.3d 1190 (Exemption 7(E) requires logical showing of risk of circumvention)