Veterans for a Strong America v. Department of State
211 F. Supp. 3d 182
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Veterans for a Strong America and its chairman Joel Arends filed a FOIA request to the State Department for emails, telephonic records, and any transcripts reflecting calls made or received by then‑Secretary Hillary Clinton during the 24‑hour period surrounding the Benghazi attacks (Sept. 11–12, 2012).
- State assigned Request No. F-1014-116742, searched multiple record systems (Central File, retired Office of the Secretary files including Clinton’s email collection, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Executive Secretariat, and the Operations Center), and produced 112 responsive documents (25 released in full, 85 in part, 2 withheld entirely).
- State invoked FOIA Exemptions (b)(1) (classified national security information under Executive Order 13526), (b)(5) (deliberative process), and (b)(6) (privacy) for withheld material; Plaintiffs did not contest (b)(5) and (b)(6) withholdings.
- Plaintiffs primarily challenged the adequacy of searches for telephonic records created on or memorializing calls made on non‑government (private) phones and sought limited discovery to test whether such records exist outside State’s possession.
- The Court reviewed the detailed Hackett Declaration describing search locations, terms, and results, found the searches reasonably calculated to locate responsive records and that Exemption 1 classifications were properly justified; it denied discovery and granted summary judgment for State.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of State's search for telephonic records (including non‑gov't phones) | Plaintiffs argued State did not explain how searched systems were reasonably likely to contain records of calls on private phones or transcripts, so search was inadequate. | State showed detailed, good‑faith searches of record systems likely to contain relevant materials and requested non‑government records from Clinton per Federal Records Act procedures. | Search was adequate; Hackett Declaration entitled to presumption of good faith and plaintiffs offered only speculation. |
| Withholding under Exemption 1 (classified information) | Plaintiffs argued Hackett’s declaration lacked sufficient specificity about harm from disclosure to national security. | State provided a narrative Vaughn index and specific EO 13526 categories and harm explanations for each classified item. | Exemption 1 properly applied; Court accepted State's tailored justifications. |
| Segregability of non‑exempt information | Plaintiffs implied more could be disclosed. | State performed line‑by‑line review and explained no further reasonably segregable information existed. | Court accepted State’s segregability showing. |
| Request for limited discovery to verify existence of extra‑agency records | Plaintiffs sought discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)(2) to find private phone records or transcripts. | State argued detailed declaration negates need for discovery; FOIA does not require agencies to retrieve records not in their control. | Discovery denied; plaintiffs failed to rebut presumption of good faith and provided no factual basis for discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir.) (agency must show search reasonably calculated to uncover requested documents)
- Oglesby v. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir.) (agency must conduct reasonable, good‑faith search of systems likely to possess requested records)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir.) (agency affidavits can establish search adequacy if detailed and uncontested)
- Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir.) (requirement of itemized justification for withholdings)
- Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (1980) (FOIA covers only agency records in possession or control at time of request)
- Founding Church of Scientology v. NSA, 610 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir.) (summary judgment inappropriate where record raises substantial doubt about search adequacy)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment allocation of burdens)