Braun v. FBI, No. 18-2145, 2019 WL 3343948 (D.D.C. July 25, 2019) (Cooper, J.)

Braun v. FBI, No. 18-2145, 2019 WL 3343948 (D.D.C. July 25, 2019) (Cooper, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning plaintiff's alleged employment by CIA, as well as records concerning alleged CIA employment records and plaintiff's father

Disposition:  Granting defendants' motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  "[B]ased on the detailed affidavits submitted by each agency, the Court finds the searches were adequate."  The court holds that "[e]ach agency has detailed the steps of its search in a declaration."  "[The FBI] explains that in response to [plaintiff's] requests, the FBI conducted multiple searches of its Central Records System . . . and manual indices, using multiple structural and phonetic variations of [plaintiff's] name."  "It also conducted a similar search for files on . . . Plaintiff's father."  "Like the FBI, the CIA searched for different combinations of [plaintiff's] name."  "Pursuant to its regulations, the CIA limited its searches to records that would reveal an open, unclassified, or acknowledged relationship with [plaintiff]."  Responding to plaintiff's arguments, the court finds that "'purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other documents' are insufficient to rebut the presumption of good faith accorded to agency declarations."
   
• Exemption 7(E), Glomar:  The court holds that "[t]he FBI's response is sufficient to justify the Exemption and corresponding Glomar response."  The court finds that "[plaintiff's] request for records regarding his presence on a watch list raises . . . problems . . . ."  "The FBI cannot reveal if [plaintiff] is on its watch list without giving away information that might tip off those on the watch list or aid those who seek to avoid being placed on it."  "Should the FBI abandon its 'even-handed Glomar response,' and provide [plaintiff] with a specific answer to his request, it would risk placing 'more information [regarding the watch list] in the public domain from which individuals could inductively piece together' FBI enforcement guidelines with the aim of circumventing the law."  "Therefore, while the agency's justifications for Exemption 7(E) in this case are brief, they suffice."
   
• Exemptions 1 & 3, Glomar:  "[Plaintiff's] conclusory allegations represent neither the 'contrary evidence in the record' nor the 'evidence of the agency's bad faith' sufficient to rebut an agency's detailed affidavits" and, therefore, "the Court [finds that] the agency's affidavits [are] sufficient to justify their claimed exemptions . . . ."  The court relates that "[i]n support of its withholding under Exemption 1, the CIA invokes Executive Order 13,526, the operative authority governing classification of national security information."  The court finds that "[t]he CIA provides a declaration detailing the national security interest implicated by these records, which conforms to the specifications of the Executive Order."  Regarding Exemption 3, the court finds that "the CIA relies on § 102A(i)(1) of the National Security Act – which requires the Director of National Intelligence to 'protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure' – as the statutory mandate that 'requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue.'"  "[Plaintiff] again fails to advance any arguments beyond a general allegation that the CIA's Glomar responses were 'fabricated or misleading' given his insistence that the requested database entries must exist.'