Skip to main content

Graybill v. NSA, No. 23-08754, 2025 WL 35983 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2025) (Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, J.)

Date

Graybill v. NSA, No. 23-08754, 2025 WL 35983 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2025) (Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning plaintiff

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion to dismiss

  • Exemption 1: The court holds that “[plaintiff] has failed to show that the Glomar response here was inappropriate.”  “To the contrary, the Court finds that the Defendants have logically justified the potential harm from disclosure, that this justification falls under the scope of E.O. 13526, and therefore a Glomar response is appropriate here.”  “In particular, the NSA has submitted a declaration explaining that acknowledging the existence or nonexistence of responsive records on particular individuals or organizations, if responded to on a collective level, ‘would provide adversaries with critical information about the capabilities and limitations of the NSA,’ ‘to the detriment of the national security of the United States.’” “The CIA has submitted a declaration explaining that it consistently refuses to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of requested records ‘where the existence of responsive records appears to be of little consequence or when the CIA does not possess responsive records,’ because to do otherwise would be ‘tantamount to an admission that such records existed and would thereby undermine the very information the CIA is obligated to protect in the interest of national security.’”  “As the Court does not find any evidence of bad faith or contrary evidence on the record, the Court must give ‘substantial weight’ to these declarations.”

    “[Plaintiff] also argues that Section 1.7(a) prevents classification of the information ‘[d]ue to the crimes committed against [him] by [Defendants],’ as it prevents classification of information ‘in order to conceal violations of law,’ among other ‘government misconduct.’” “However, there are no allegations supporting any crime or other misconduct in [plaintiff’s] Complaint.”
     
  • Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection:  “As the Court finds that Defendants’ Glomar response appropriate, the Court does not find that an in camera review of any documents is warranted.”
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Exemption 1
Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection
Updated January 31, 2025