Adams v. CIA, No. 20-377, 2022 WL 2752585 (D.D.C. July 14, 2022) (McFadden, J.)

Adams v. CIA, No. 20-377, 2022 WL 2752585 (D.D.C. July 14, 2022) (McFadden, J.)

Re:  Request for certain records concerning plaintiff

Disposition:  Granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  “The Court . . . finds that the CIA conducted a reasonable search under the circumstances.”  The court relates that “[t]he CIA’s declaration details the scope of its searches.”  “The CIA’s main declarant describes the systems searched, why the relevant information is likely in those systems, and the personnel involved.”  “The declarant also describes the search methodology – including the search terms and the date range – for each of [plaintiff’s] requests.”  “And the declarant’s statements stem from her personal knowledge and information made available to her in her official capacity as Information Review Officer for the CIA’s Litigation Review Office.”  The court also relates that “[plaintiff] argues the search was inadequate because the CIA did not produce certain records.”  “But [the court finds that] that is not the standard.”  The court also relates that “[plaintiff] also contends that the CIA’s declaration is not admissible.”  “But it meets the demands of Rule 56.”  “A declarant satisfies Rule 56(c)’s personal knowledge requirement in a FOIA case if she ‘attests to [her] personal knowledge of the procedures used in handling a FOIA request and [her] familiarity with the documents in question.’”
   
• Exemptions 1 & 3:  The court holds that “[t]he CIA is therefore entitled to summary judgment on Exemptions 1 and 3 on the information redacted from the unclassified records.”  Regarding Exemption 1, the court finds that “[t]he CIA’s declarant adequately explains that the redacted information pertains to intelligence activities, methods, and ‘the nature and details of classified relationships.’”  “She also reasonably explains how the disclosure of such information could damage national security.”  “Thus, [the court finds that] the redacted information qualifies for Exemption 1.”  Regarding Exemption 3, the court relates that “[t]o support its Exemption 3 response, the CIA relies on the National Security Act of 1947 (NSA Act), 50 U.S.C. § 3024(i)(1), and the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 (CIA Act), 50 U.S.C. § 3507.”  “Both Acts qualify as Exemption 3 statutes.”  “[Defendant’s declarant] . . . attests that the CIA redacted ‘titles, names, identification numbers, functions, and organizational information related to CIA employees’ under the CIA Act.”  The court finds that “[t]his information is quintessential Exemption 3 material.”
  
  Separately, the court relates that “the CIA justifies its Glomar responses under FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3 and Privacy Act Exemption (j)(1).”  “The CIA provided Glomar responses for (a) [certain portions of the request] for which it conducted no searches, and (b) ‘certain types of additional records responsive to [other portions of the request]’ . . . for which it conducted searches . . . .”  “The CIA’s declarant attests that a non-Glomar response for these items ‘would reveal a classified and statutorily-protected fact within the meaning of’ FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3 and Privacy Act Exemption (j)(1).”  However, the court finds that “the CIA attested that it searched for records responsive to [some] request items . . . .”  “And it confirmed it possesses responsive documents.”  “So the CIA has acknowledged the ‘fact’ of those records’ existence.”  “More, the CIA’s treatment of [two portions of plaintiff’s request] is unclear.”  “Thus, the CIA is entitled to summary judgment only as to [the portions of the request for which defendant conducted no searches] for its Glomar responses.”
   
• Exemption 6:  “Because the same redactions are proper under Exemption 3, the Court has ‘no need to consider Exemption 6 separately[.]’”