Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep't of State, No. 14-1511, 2017 WL 4862108 (D.D.C. Oct. 24, 2017) (Jackson, J.)

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep't of State, No. 14-1511, 2017 WL 4862108 (D.D.C. Oct. 24, 2017) (Jackson, J.)

Re:  Request for records created in response to September 11, 2012 attack on United States Consulate in Benghazi, Libya

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for reconsideration

• Exemption 1:  "[T]he Court concludes that it is appropriate to reconsider its prior ruling, and it has determined that the withheld material falls within the scope of FOIA Exemption 1."  "The Court previously concluded that two documents that defendant redacted pursuant to [FOIA] Exemption 5 were not exempt[.]"  "[T]he Court finds that the State Department failed to invoke Exemption 1 due to human error, and that disclosure of the redacted information would threaten national security[.]"  Specifically, the court finds that "it does not appear that the agency's failure to invoke Exemption 1 was part of an effort to gain a tactical advantage, but rather, that it stemmed from inefficiencies at and extraordinary burdens placed upon defendant's FOIA unit," and also "disclosure could 'inject friction into, or cause serious damage to, a number of [ ] bilateral relationships with countries whose cooperation is important to U.S. national security[.]'"  Regarding Exemption 1 specifically, the court finds that "[defendant's] declarant averred that the information was classified on May 15, 2015, pursuant to Executive Order 13,526, which classifies information that could reasonably be expected to cause harm to national security."  "Moreover, the Court conducted an in camera review of the documents prior to its ruling on the motions for summary judgment, and it is satisfied that the redacted information is properly classified pursuant to FOIA Exemption 1."
   
• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements:  The court finds that "[t]he State Department's declarant explained that the agency 'conducted a line-by-line review of [another document containing the same classified information] and determined there is no additional information that can be reasonably segregated for release.'"  "Since [the declarant] also averred that this 'explanation applies with equal force to the text as it appears in [the instant documents],' . . . and this was borne out by the Court's in camera review, the Court finds that the State Department has met its segregability obligation."