Skip to main content

ACLU v. DOD, No. 17-3391, 2020 WL 6637828 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2020) (Engelmayer, J.)

Date

ACLU v. DOD, No. 17-3391, 2020 WL 6637828 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2020) (Engelmayer, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning U.S. military operation carried out on January 29, 2017, in al Ghayil, Yemen

Disposition:  Granting defendants' motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment

  • Exemption 1 & Waiver:  Regarding "[two] redacted cop[ies] of 'military orders from the Joint Staff to CENTCOM to conduct operations supporting the Shabwah offensive approved by the President,'" "[o]n the summary judgment record . . . the Court could not meaningfully assess the parties' respective claims."  The court relates that "[plaintiff] contended that the Government may have previously publicly acknowledged some or all of the information that it has redacted within those documents, so as to waive Exemption One's protections as to that information."  "Defendants countered that the redacted information in each, which they represented contained 'details regarding the parameters of the mission, the time span of the approval, and other operational information' that would reveal classified information about the 'foreign activities [ ], intelligence methods, and military operations' of the United States, was more specific than any prior governmental acknowledgment."  "Accordingly, the Court reserved decision as to [the documents], and directed defendants to provide those records for the Court's secure in camera review."  "The Court has now carefully reviewed those records."  "The Court holds that each was properly redacted."  "[T]he Court finds, the redacted information in [the two documents] does not match, and is clearly more specific than, any information previously disclosed by the Government."  "The redacted material indeed contains 'details regarding the parameters of the mission, the time span of the approval, and other operational information,' as described by the Government."  "And that material does not 'present the same information about the same subject' as any prior government disclosure [plaintiff] has identified."  "The revelation of the redacted portion of these records would thus necessarily reveal information that has not been officially acknowledged, and this in turn may cause harm to U.S. national security or foreign relations."
     
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Exemption 1
Updated December 2, 2020