Hall v. CIA, No. 04-814, 2022 WL 2528102 (D.D.C. July 7, 2022) (Lamberth, J.)

Hall v. CIA, No. 04-814, 2022 WL 2528102 (D.D.C. July 7, 2022) (Lamberth, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning prisoners of war from Vietnam War

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court relates that "[t]he Court ordered the Central Intelligence Agency . . . to conduct a search of its operational files, which are typically exempt from a FOIA search."  "The CIA conducted that search and found no responsive records."  "The case was then closed, after which plaintiffs moved to reconsider so that this Court could evaluate the adequacy of the CIA's operational file search."  "The Court reopened the case for that single 'limited purpose.'"
  
  The court relates that "[t]he CIA submitted an initial and supplemental affidavit here."  The court finds that "[t]he CIA describes the search conducted in reasonable detail including what it searched for, . . . who searched, . . . the types of documents searched and the terms used, . . . the process by which initially responsive results were reviewed, . . . and the final results . . . ."  "The CIA further explained that it 'included all relevant office databases likely to contain responsive records.'"  "And later supplemented its initial declaration by explaining that '[a]ny database where operational files related to Plaintiff's request could reasonably have been located were searched in the course of this review.'"  "These affidavits are accorded a presumption of good faith."
  
  The court analyzes plaintiff's three arguments as to the adequacy of the search.  First, the court relates that "Plaintiffs contend that their evidence demonstrates that the CIA has not released records 'clearly in its possession.'"  "After reviewing the specific portions of the 2016 statement of material facts cited to by plaintiffs, as well as the affidavits referenced, [the] Court . . . identified several that form a substantial basis for plaintiffs' contention."  "For example, the affidavits of Former United States Senator Bob Smith and James Sanders are statements tending to establish the prior existence of records shown to Congress."  "These kinds of statements were previously credited by the Court as 'positive indications of overlooked materials.'"  "But, just because 'a document [might have] once existed does not mean that it now exists.'"  The court explains that "plaintiffs' varied and voluminous references to documents and exhibits, some of which the CIA has previously released, do not demonstrate that the CIA possesses related files."  "'[M]ere reference to other files does not establish the existence of [relevant] documents.'"  "But more fundamentally, plaintiffs' evidence fails given the limited purpose here."  "Agencies normally have discretion when determining which systems they believe are going to be responsive to a plaintiff's request."  "But here, the Court specifically ordered a search of operational files."  "The Court is only addressing the adequacy of that operational files search."  "And the plaintiffs' evidence does not establish, or even significantly suggest, that the files referenced are in the CIA's current operational files."
  
  The court relates that "Plaintiffs' next argument is that a litany of search terms should have been used by the CIA."  The court finds that "[h]ere the CIA lists the following search terms:  'POWs, prisoners of war, MIA, missing in action, Vietnam, task force, House Special POW, image, and different combinations and variations of those search terms.'"  "The CIA also explains that it used broad search terms because the use of more specific terms may have omitted documents potentially responsive to plaintiff."  "The Court finds these terms sufficient because 'it . . . appears more than likely that the terms utilized would identify' documents responsive to plaintiffs' request."
  
  Finally, the court relates that "Plaintiffs' last argument is that the CIA's description of its search is insufficient to warrant summary judgment."  "The Court holds the CIA's description is adequate, especially considering the circumstances of this case, wherein the Court has ordered the CIA to search its operational files."  "Plaintiffs cite no other cases to support their proposition that the CIA must be more detailed."  "And, in fact, cases suggest that the CIA is not obligated to, 'disclose the specific offices searched or other search methodologies with such granularity.'"  "But even beyond the affidavit's independent sufficiency, this case involves unique circumstances that further counsel ruling in favor of the CIA."  "The Court ordered the CIA to search its operational files."  "Operational files are typically exempt from search, review, or disclosure under the National Security Act of 1947."  "It is only because this Court applied one of the Act's limited exceptions[, 50 U.S.C. § 3141 (f)(4),] that the CIA needed to search its operational files here."  "The CIA rightfully points out the sensitive national security nature of its operational files."  "Thus, requiring an even more detailed description would be [a] delicate matter."