Scudder v. Central Intelligence Agency
254 F. Supp. 3d 135
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jeffrey Scudder, a former CIA IT employee, submitted FOIA requests seeking electronic copies of Studies in Intelligence (SII) articles; the requests were narrowed to 419 articles and the CIA produced 249 (in full or in part) and withheld 170 (later determined to be 167) in full.
- The CIA invoked FOIA Exemptions 1 (classified national security information), 3 (statutory exemptions), and 6 (privacy) for withheld items; the ten partially released articles were challenged only as to Exemptions 1 and 3.
- The district court previously denied initial summary judgment motions due to factual disputes and ordered discovery; parties later agreed to post non-exempt PDFs online and the CIA submitted multiple declarations and Vaughn indices, including sealed ex parte materials.
- The core remaining issue was whether the CIA properly withheld 177 articles (167 withheld in full and redactions in 10) under Exemptions 1 and 3 and whether segregable non-exempt material was produced.
- The CIA's declarations (from an official with original classification authority) described document-by-document bases for classification and harm; Scudder disputed sufficiency, asserted 133 articles had been approved for release, and requested discovery or in camera review.
- The court reviewed public and sealed filings, credited the CIA's declarations and Vaughn indices, rejected Scudder's lay second-guessing of classification, and found the agency met its burden as to Exemption 1 and segregability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CIA's declarations and Vaughn index adequately justify withholding under Exemption 1 | Scudder: CIA's Vaughn and 3d Lutz Decl. are vague, boilerplate, insufficient for summary judgment | CIA: Declarations (including sealed supplemental materials) and detailed Vaughn indices plausibly show documents are properly classified under E.O. 13526 and fall within Exemption 1 | Granted for CIA — court found declarations and Vaughn indices sufficiently detailed and plausible |
| Whether specific SII articles are in fact unclassified (Scudder's claim that 133 were marked for release) | Scudder: Personal knowledge and IRRG markings show many articles were approved as unclassified prior to litigation | CIA: Classification determinations made by an original classification authority; plaintiff lacks authority/expertise to override agency classification; context and mosaic concerns justify secrecy | Court rejected Scudder's lay challenge; credited CIA's OCA declarations |
| Whether authors' names or information available elsewhere defeats classification | Scudder: Some redacted names are publicly available on CIA website, suggesting overclassification | CIA: Disclosure context-dependent; a name unclassified in one document may be classified in another; mosaic effect can reveal sensitive information | Court agreed with CIA that context and mosaic theory permit withholding despite isolated public references |
| Whether CIA released all reasonably segregable non-exempt information | Scudder: Speculates titles suggest innocuous content and possible segregable material; requests discovery or in camera sampling | CIA: Performed page-by-page, line-by-line review; declared no additional non-exempt material could be released without harm; supplemental Vaughn and sealed declarations support this | Court accepted CIA's segregability showing; speculation insufficient to rebut agency affidavits |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden on movant)
- Larson v. Dep't of State, 565 F.3d 857 (D.C. Cir.) (agency affidavits must describe justification with specific detail; plausibility standard)
- Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir.) (deference to CIA classification determinations)
- CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159 (context can make superficially innocuous facts sensitive)
- Halkin v. Helms, 598 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir.) (mosaic theory — aggregation of innocuous facts can reveal sensitive information)
- Cent. for Nat'l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 331 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir.) (judicial deference in national security FOIA cases)
- SafeCard Servs. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir.) (agency affidavits accorded presumption of good faith)