Assassination Archives & Research Ctr. v. CIA, No. 18-5280, 2019 WL 691517 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 15, 2019) (per curiam)

Assassination Archives & Research Ctr. v. CIA, No. 18-5280, 2019 WL 691517 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 15, 2019) (per curiam)

Re:  Request for records concerning CIA's research into assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler

Disposition:  Granting in part and denying in part government's motion for summary affirmance

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search & Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records:  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit holds that "[t]he district court correctly concluded that the Central Intelligence Agency's search for records in response to [the requester's] Freedom of Information Act . . . request was adequate, notwithstanding the fact that the Agency did not use the precise search terms suggested by [the requester] and did not locate several records that [the requester] expected would be located."
   
• Exemption 1:  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit holds that "[t]he district court also correctly concluded that portions of the Propagandist's Guide to Communist Dissensions were properly redacted pursuant to FOIA Exemption 1."  "The government represents that, pursuant to a 2012 Declassification Guide, those portions were not automatically declassified due to their age. Appellant has provided no reason for this court to question that representation."
   
• Exemption 3:  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit holds that "[the requester] does not refute the district court's conclusion that the portions of the remaining responsive records which contain personally identifying information were properly withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemption 3, by way of the CIA Act, 50 U.S.C. § 3507 (exempting the CIA from disclosing any records describing 'the organization, functions, names, official titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed by the [CIA]')."  "Because the court has concluded that these redactions were justified under FOIA Exemption 3, it need not consider whether they were also justified under FOIA Exemption 6."
   
• Exemption 5:  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit holds that "[s]ummary affirmance is denied as to whether appellee correctly withheld portions of several intra-agency communications pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5."  "Because the court has determined that summary disposition is not in order with respect to this issue, the Clerk is instructed to calendar this case for presentation to a merits panel."