Stephen Yagman v. Michael Pompeo
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16403
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Stephen Yagman submitted a FOIA request to the CIA seeking "records/information" identifying CIA employees, contractors, or affiliates who "are alleged to have engaged in torture" after September 11, 2001, referencing President Obama’s August 1, 2014 comment that "we tortured some folks."
- The CIA replied within FOIA’s twenty-day period that agencies are not required to answer questions and declined to process the request as a FOIA request; Yagman reiterated the request and the CIA reaffirmed its position.
- Yagman filed suit under FOIA to compel disclosure; the CIA later left messages inviting him to call the FOIA hotline to reformulate the request, and the receptionist called but Yagman did not follow up.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding the letter was a question (not a records request), Yagman failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and exhaustion was jurisdictional.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed: it held the CIA must liberally construe FOIA requests and that Yagman’s letter was a request for records, but the request failed to "reasonably describe" the records sought. The court concluded the description requirement is nonjurisdictional and remanded for an opportunity to refine the request with agency assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yagman’s letter was a FOIA request or an impermissible question | The letter sought records/information identifying persons alleged to have engaged in torture and thus was a FOIA request | The letter posed a question and agencies are not required to answer questions under FOIA | Liberally construed, the letter was a FOIA request, not merely a question |
| Whether the request "reasonably describe[d]" the records (5 U.S.C. §552(a)(3)) | Yagman argued the request identified the subject (identities/affiliates of those who engaged in torture) and was sufficient | CIA argued the request was too vague—no names, document types, timeframes, locations, or clarity about alleged vs. actual torture | The request failed the "reasonable description" requirement because it was too vague; denial addressed on the merits, not jurisdictionally |
| Whether failure to reasonably describe records is an exhaustion/jurisdictional defect | Yagman contended he submitted a FOIA request and exhaustion was not jurisdictional here | CIA argued failure to satisfy description/administrative steps meant lack of exhaustion and thus no federal jurisdiction | The description requirement and FOIA exhaustion are nonjurisdictional; failures are for merits/pleading (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6)), not subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Remedy and next steps | Yagman sought compelled disclosure | CIA offered to assist in reformulating a request; argued dismissal appropriate | Court reversed dismissal, remanded and instructed district court to allow Yagman to reframe request and permit the CIA to assist; stay permissible to allow refinement and response |
Key Cases Cited
- Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2011) (FOIA applies to agencies, not individual officials)
- John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (1989) (FOIA is broadly construed in favor of disclosure)
- EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73 (1973) (FOIA’s policy favors disclosure)
- Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (1976) (FOIA disclosure is the dominant objective)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (distinguishing jurisdictional rules from nonjurisdictional procedural requirements)
- Leeson v. Transamerica Disability Income Plan, 671 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2012) (framework for analyzing jurisdictional character of statutory requirements)
- Zemansky v. EPA, 767 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1985) (agency has no duty under FOIA to answer questions or create documents)
- Marks v. United States, 578 F.2d 261 (9th Cir. 1978) (FOIA requires that requests reasonably describe records; overly broad/vague requests are impermissible)
- Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (1975) (distinguishing statutory jurisdictional prerequisites from prudential exhaustion)
- Hidalgo v. FBI, 344 F.3d 1256 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (FOIA exhaustion is prudential, not jurisdictional)
- Ruotolo v. Dep’t of Justice, Tax Div., 53 F.3d 4 (2d Cir. 1995) (agency should make good-faith attempts to help a requester satisfy the reasonable-description requirement)