6 F. Supp. 3d 78
D.D.C.2013Background
- Kathryn (Katelyn) Sack, a University of Virginia graduate student, filed multiple FOIA requests to DoD components (DIA and NSA) seeking aggregate polygraph data, EEO/polygraph records, studies on polygraph bias, and correspondence with researcher Sheila Reed.
- DIA searched the National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA) and Office of Security; located and released three documents for one request, found none for others, and received several records referred from OPM/FIS which DIA withheld in full or redacted.
- DIA relied on keyword searches (e.g., “bias,” “gender,” “race,” “age,” “sexual orientation”), consulted component leadership about where responsive records would be kept, and later performed supplemental email searches.
- DIA withheld several Quality Assurance Program Inspection (QAP) reports under FOIA Exemption 7(E), citing risk that disclosure would enable circumvention of law enforcement/background-screening procedures.
- NSA refused to classify Sack as an “educational institution” requester and treated her as “all other,” estimating search costs and requiring prepayment; Sack appealed with a letter from a UVA official but did not pay fees or commit to payment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of DIA searches (Counts II, IX, XIII) | Sack contends DIA narrowed requests (focused on bias), omitted full search-term disclosure, and searched wrong offices or failed to search email systems. | DIA states it reasonably targeted likely locations (NCCA and Office of Security), used relevant keywords, consulted senior officials, and later conducted supplemental email searches. | Court: DIA's searches were reasonable and adequate given request scope and consultations; supplemental email search addressed concerns. |
| Withholding QAP Reports under Exemption 7(E) (Counts XI, XII) | Sack argues employment-screening polygraph details pose no circumvention risk and DIA failed to segregate non-sensitive material. | DIA contends disclosure could reveal vulnerabilities and law-enforcement/screening techniques, risking circumvention; non-segregable because even strengths reveal procedures. | Court: Exemption 7(E) applies; DIA met its burden and withholding of QAP reports was justified. |
| NSA classification as “educational institution” requester (Requests 64010, 64011) | Sack argues she acted as a UVA Department representative for scholarly research (supported by a UVA Director of Graduate Studies letter). | NSA argues the submissions were conclusory, did not show the request served an institutional scholarly project (not individual coursework), and thus properly classified her as "all other." | Court: NSA's denial upheld—Sack failed to show she was acting on behalf of the institution or pursuing an institutional-sponsored research project. |
| NSA fee practice / two free hours and prepayment requirement | Sack asserts she should have received two free hours and that NSA erred in requiring payment before searching. | NSA relies on DoD regulations permitting prepayment or a commitment to pay and estimating costs; Sack declined to pay or narrow request. | Court: NSA acted within regulations; prepayment requirement and fee handling were proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 655 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (FOIA’s disclosure purpose)
- U.S. Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1976) (FOIA’s purpose to pierce administrative secrecy)
- Loving v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 550 F.3d 32 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (FOIA exemptions framework)
- Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (standard for adequacy of agency search)
- Truitt v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 897 F.2d 540 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (agency must show search reasonably calculated to uncover documents)
- Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (search adequacy principles)
- Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (adequacy standard: not whether other records might exist)
- Larson v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (agency affidavits and justification for nondisclosure)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (good-faith effort/search methods)
- Mayer Brown LLP v. IRS, 562 F.3d 1190 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (Exemption 7(E) protects information that could facilitate circumvention)
- Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (7(E) requires logical demonstration of risk)
- Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (withholding of security/clearance procedures under 7(E))
- Tax Analysts v. IRS, 294 F.3d 71 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (withholding internal law-enforcement guidelines and techniques)