Sack v. Central Intelligence Agency
49 F. Supp. 3d 15
D.D.C.2014Background
- Kathryn Sack, a Ph.D. student, filed FOIA requests seeking CIA records about its polygraph program (reports, statistics, procedures, applicant polygraph records, Blue Ribbon Panel materials).
- CIA located numerous responsive records across multiple requests (2009–2012), producing some documents in full or in part and withholding others under FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, 5, and 6.
- Sack narrowed her challenge to the CIA’s withholding of 26 documents under Exemption 3 and several documents under Exemptions 1 and 5, and also alleged prior public release and failure to segregate non-exempt material.
- The CIA submitted Vaughn indices and declarations (M. Lutz; J. Hackett) describing searches and withholding bases; Sack did not challenge search adequacy.
- The court deferred to the CIA’s national-security affidavits for classified material and upheld many withholdings, ordered supplementation regarding materials withheld solely under the Central Intelligence Act, and required production of two documents the CIA conceded had been previously released.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether polygraph-related material may be withheld under Exemption 1 as classified "intelligence sources and methods" | Sack: CIA has not shown polygraph program is an intelligence method or that classification procedures were followed | CIA: Polygraphs protect intelligence operations and were classified pre-request; disclosure would reveal sources/methods and harm security | Held: Court upheld Exemption 1 withholdings as logical/plausible and found classifications timely made pre-request |
| Whether materials may be withheld under Exemption 3 (National Security Act; Central Intelligence Act) | Sack: CIA overbroadly applies Central Intelligence Act; phrase "of personnel employed by the Agency" limits scope | CIA: Withholdings rest mainly on National Security Act; some internal routing withheld under Central Intelligence Act | Held: Withholdings under National Security Act sustained; CIA must supplement Vaughn/declaration to justify any material withheld exclusively under Central Intelligence Act |
| Whether documents withheld under Exemption 5 (deliberative process) are post-decisional or predecisional drafts | Sack: Some documents reflect actions after Blue Ribbon Panel and so are not predecisional | CIA: Withheld items are drafts/predecisional deliberations about implementing recommendations | Held: Court accepted CIA’s explanation that withheld items are drafts and deliberative; Exemption 5 justification sustained |
| Whether CIA released prior public-domain material and whether it properly segregated non-exempt material | Sack: Some withheld information was previously released; CIA’s Vaughn entries are conclusory about segregation | CIA: Re-reviewed and produced two documents previously released; performed line-by-line reviews and redactions; withheld only non-segregable or classified/deliberative material | Held: Two documents produced after re-review; court found CIA’s line-by-line review and redactions sufficient to meet segregability burden; minor Vaughn carelessness noted but presumption of good faith upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159 (defining "intelligence sources and methods" and agency power to protect secrecy)
- Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370 (agency affidavits must be plausible; deference in national security FOIA cases)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Department of Defense, 715 F.3d 937 (deference to agency affidavits unless bad faith or contrary evidence)
- Juarez v. Department of Justice, 518 F.3d 54 (agency declarations of page-by-page review can satisfy segregability requirement)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. Department of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (non-segregable "inextricably intertwined" doctrine)