Shapiro v. Central Intelligence Agency
272 F. Supp. 3d 115
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Ryan Shapiro filed FOIA requests with multiple intelligence agencies seeking any document mentioning Nelson Mandela; the FBI completed its production and moved for dismissal or summary judgment.
- The Court previously resolved most disputes but reserved judgment on two issues: (1) whether a draft Operations Plan for a U.S. delegation to Mandela’s funeral was properly withheld under Exemption 5; and (2) whether the FBI’s responsiveness determinations (release of non‑consecutive pages from larger files) were proper.
- The Court conducted an in camera review of the ten‑page draft Operations Plan after the parties’ cross‑motions.
- The FBI explained its records practice: when Mandela is indexed as a main subject, whole files are responsive; when Mandela appears only in cross‑references, the FBI treats individual pages that mention him as independent responsive records and releases those pages (plus context pages as needed).
- Shapiro argued the FBI should have released entire serials or intervening pages once any reference appears; the FBI argued its page‑based practice is longstanding, reasonable, and necessary because cross‑references often contain largely irrelevant material.
- The Court found the draft Operations Plan properly withheld under Exemption 5 and upheld the FBI’s responsiveness determinations, granting summary judgment for the FBI.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper application of Exemption 5 to draft Operations Plan | Shapiro argued the plan might be merely logistical and not deliberative so should be disclosed | FBI argued the plan was a pre‑decisional, deliberative draft circulated between agencies and exempt | Court: Withheld properly under Exemption 5 as pre‑decisional and deliberative; factual items embedded were part of deliberation and exempt |
| Unit of responsiveness (pages vs. serials/files) | Shapiro argued any document/serial containing a Mandela reference should be released in full, including intervening pages | FBI argued it reasonably treats pages in cross‑references as independent responsive records and releases context as needed; main files differ | Court: Upheld FBI practice; pages may be individual responsive records when Mandela appears only in cross‑references |
| Adequacy of FBI declarations explaining responsiveness | Shapiro contended the record lacked sufficient detail and offered prior testimony/training materials suggesting serials are single documents | FBI provided supplemental declarations (Hardy) explaining distinctions between main files, serials, and cross‑references and its longstanding practice | Court: Declaration was satisfactory; FBI earned presumption of good faith and Shapiro failed to show bad faith or improper withholding |
| Plaintiff's entitlement to "missing pages" between released, non‑consecutive pages | Shapiro sought intervening pages he contends are part of the same responsive record | FBI showed intervening pages did not mention Mandela and were not necessary context under its practice | Court: "Missing pages" need not be released; they fall outside FOIA scope here |
Key Cases Cited
- Tax Analysts v. Internal Revenue Serv., 117 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (Exemption 5 requires documents be both pre‑decisional and deliberative)
- Hooker v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 887 F. Supp. 2d 40 (D.D.C. 2012) (deliberative process protects recommendatory drafts and editorial choices about which factual material to include)
- ViroPharma Inc. v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 839 F. Supp. 2d 184 (D.D.C. 2012) (discusses how factual material intertwined with deliberative material may be exempt under Exemption 5)