Sherven v. CIA, No. 22-701, 2024 WL 4582366 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 25, 2024) (Peterson, J.)

Sherven v. CIA, No. 22-701, 2024 WL 4582366 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 25, 2024) (Peterson, J.)

Re:  Request for various records concerning plaintiff, as well as records concerning certain CIA policies and practices

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff’s motion for in camera inspection

• Exemption 1, Glomar Response:  The court relates that “[plaintiff] appears to be challenging the CIA’s refusal to search for documents in response to Requests 3 through 6 relating to the following issues:”  “signals intelligence;” “‘spy satellites;’” “conversations between the American and Ukrainian presidents in October 2022,”  and “Nicaraguan rebel groups being funded by the CIA.”  The court finds that “[t]he CIA could have been more specific in its explanation.”  “But it is at least plausible that disclosing details of the CIA’s intelligence activities and private conversations of the President would harm national security.” “The type of information [plaintiff] seeks is similar to the information that courts have protected from disclosure in the past.”  “[Plaintiff] cites no contrary evidence suggesting that the information he is requesting would not harm national security.”  “[Plaintiff] does not explain any of his [other] assertions, and [the court] conclude[s] that none of them preclude summary judgment in favor of the CIA.” “First, [plaintiff’s] request for the CIA to produce segregable portions of the classified records is presumably based on § 552(a)(8)(A)(ii)(II), which requires the agency to ‘take reasonable steps necessary to segregate and release nonexempt information.’”  “But this requirement cannot apply when the agency has shown that disclosure of even the existence or absence of documents could harm national security.”  “In that situation, all of the documents (or lack thereof) necessarily qualify for the exemption.”  “There is nothing to segregate.”  “Second, [plaintiff] cites no legal authority for the view that a FOIA exemption does not apply to a document that relates to the requester.” “Third, [plaintiff] cites no authority for the view that FOIA exemptions do not apply when the requester is alleging unlawful conduct by the agency.”  “Fourth, [plaintiff] identifies no false statements made by [defendant], and he cites no evidence of perjury.”  “So he has not supported that allegation.”
   
• Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection:  “As for [plaintiff’s] request for the court to conduct an in camera review,” the court finds that “[t]his is another provision that does not apply once the court determines that national security could be harmed even by confirming or denying the existence of the records.”  “Any in camera review of records would necessarily require the agency to confirm that there are responsive documents.”