Case Detail
| Case Title | MOBLEY v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2011cv01437 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2011-08-08 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2012-06-08 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Beryl A. Howell | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | SHARIF MOBLEY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [15] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Beryl Howell has allowed Sharif Mobley, a U.S. citizen currently imprisoned in Yemen, to continue his FOIA suit against the Justice Department after finding that Mobley's suit clearly indicated that he was challenging the agency's classification of various documents. The agency argued that Mobley had disavowed any intention of challenging the withholding decisions in his case. But Howell noted that Mobley had stated that although "he does not currently intend to challenge [the agency's] withholding determinations," he "reserves his right to challenge some or all of the withholdings." He also requested a Vaughn index. DOJ argued that Mobley was not entitled to request a Vaughn index unless he actually challenged some or all of the agency's exemption claims. But Howell pointed out that "despite the defendant's assertions, the Complaint does not 'explicitly disavow' that the defendant improperly withheld documents, but rather sets forth general allegations sufficient to maintain a cognizable FOIA claim." She indicated that "the plaintiff concedes in his opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss that 'it is very likely that the records are properly classified and accordingly exempt under FOIA exemption (b)(1),' but this frank assessment of his own case does not negate the fact that the plaintiff initiated the instant lawsuit because he suspects that the defendant improperly withheld documents, and states in his Complaint that he intends to contest withholdings that he deems to be improper." However, Howell rejected Mobley's call for a Vaughn index at this stage. She noted that "the plain text of the statute does not require agencies to provide a list of withheld documents, but only to make a reasonable effort to estimate the volume of the documents withheld. . .Given the unambiguous text of the statute imposes no procedural requirement on agencies to provide a list of withheld documents at the administrative stage, the Court declines to devise one here."
Opinion/Order [30]Issues: Litigation - Vaughn index FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Beryl Howell has ruled that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel's classified affidavit, which Howell viewed in camera, provided ample support for its claim that records pertaining to Sharif Mobley's incarceration in Yemen were protected by Exemption 1 (national security). Although Mobley was a U.S. citizen, he was currently being held in Yemen for allegedly killing a prison guard. He requested records from OLC pertaining to the reasons for which he was being held in Yemen. The agency eventually located 13 documents, but withheld all of them under Exemption 1. The agency explained to Howell that since the information in the records was classified by the originating agencies, it had been derivatively classified when it was received by OLC. The agency pointed out that due to the "highly sensitive nature of the responsive records. . .it is not possible to demonstrate to the Court in a public setting that the requested records are currently and properly classified" because "the very association of the identities of the original classifying authorities with this matter is itself a classified fact." Noting that courts were required to provide deference to agencies' national security claims and that the agency's claims "need only be both 'plausible' and 'logical' to justify the invocation of a FOIA exemption in the national security context," Howell pointed out that "these submissions were sufficiently thorough and detailed to allow for appropriate judicial review of the agency's decision." She found that "the defendant has amply sustained its burden of showing that the documents at issue were properly withheld from disclosure under FOIA exemption 1." Mobley argued that the public affidavits provided so little information that he had no opportunity to challenge the agency's reasons for withholding the records. But Howell observed that "where, as here, the defendant's justifications for withholding records are submitted on an ex parte, in camera basis, the plaintiff is indisputably in a difficult position to contest the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Court is also at a disadvantage since it does not have 'benefit of criticism and illumination by a party with the actual interest in forcing disclosure.' The Court must therefore scrutinize carefully the government's justifications for the withholdings, which it has done in this case." She concluded that "based upon this review, the Court agrees with the defendant that even the 'banal information' regarding the documents that the plaintiff seeks in this case is properly classified."
Issues: Litigation - In camera review, Exemption 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
