Kuzma v. CIA, No. 13-1175S, 2015 WL 1735093 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2015) (Skretny, S.J.)
Re: Request for records concerning plaintiff and a protest
Disposition: Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
- Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search: "[The] Court first finds that the CIA's Vaughn index sufficiently details the CIA's search for responsive records." The court finds that "[defendant's] recitation is thorough and exhaustive." "It details the CIA's search efforts in non-conclusory terms and specifically explains the agency's search methods and procedures." The court also finds that "[p]laintiff cites no authority requiring the inclusion of the various points of omission that he contends render the Vaughn index insufficiently detailed." "For example, the CIA is not required to identify by name the individuals who conducted the various searches, nor is it required to specify the precise time and date of each search." "[F]rom the Vaughn index, Plaintiff is informed of what searches were conducted, when they were conducted, how they were conducted, and who conducted them."
- Exemptions 1 and 3, Glomar: "[The] Court examined the CIA's Glomar response and is satisfied, based on [defendant's] thorough explanation, that the Glomar response is properly asserted and appropriately tethered to Exemptions 1 and 3." The court notes that "[p]laintiff contends that the CIA cannot shield records and photographs from the . . . protest using a Glomar response." However, the court relates that "the Vaughn index makes clear that the CIA asserts its Glomar response only as to records pertaining generally to Plaintiff himself." "The CIA does not assert a Glomar response concerning the . . . protest."