Case Detail
Case Title | CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2013cv01159 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2013-07-30 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2016-02-11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Gladys Kessler | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | CREW submitted a FOIA request to the FBI for records concerning the agency's use of drones. CREW also requested expedited processing. The agency denied the request for expedited processing, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, CREW filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Expedited processing, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [31] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Gladys Kessler has ruled that the FBI properly withheld the majority of responsive records concerning its use of drones in response to a request from CREW. While the agency relied on obvious exemptions like Exemption 1 (national security) and Exemption 3 (other statutes), it was equally successful in withholding large number of records under a combination of Exemption 4 (confidential business information) and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques), perhaps the first time that combination has come up in litigation as the basis for withholding what was essentially manufacturers' information about the products. CREW's request for records about the FBI's use of drones included a request for expedited processing, which the agency denied. However, by the time CREW got into court, Kessler ordered the agency to process records at the rate of 1,500 pages per month. The agency made six interim releases and one supplemental release. In all, the agency found 6,720 pages, released 1,970 in full or in part, and withheld the rest under Exemption 1, Exemption 3, Exemption 4, Exemption 5 (privileges), Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records) and Exemption 7(E). CREW chose not to challenge the agency's search, but did contest the exemptions as well as the agency's obligation to conduct a segregability analysis and disclose non-exempt information. The agency claimed records were protected by Exemption 1 because disclosure would reveal intelligence sources and methods. CREW argued that "the domestic use of drones by the FBI does not constitute an 'intelligence activity' or 'intelligence sources or methods' within the meaning of" the Executive Order on Classification and that testimony of former FBI Director Robert Mueller contradicted the agency's claims. Kessler noted, however, that Mueller had testified that the agency used drones in eight criminal cases and two national security cases. She pointed out that "'National security cases' is a broad category and by no means excludes foreign counterintelligence activities." She added that "in addition, the FBI's statutory duties include protecting the United States from terrorism and threats to national security, as well as furthering the foreign intelligence objectives of the United States. It logically follows that the FBI's use of drones relates to issues of national security and the intelligence activities of the United States." CREW also questioned the agency's foreign relations claim. Kessler observed that "although CREW characterizes its FOIA request as pertaining exclusively to the FBI's domestic drone program, any such limitation is absent from its FOIA Request itself." She observed that "in short, the FBI's comments do not rule out the possibility of drone use pertaining to foreign activities or foreign relations." Because the FBI's Exemption 3 claim was based on the sources and methods provision in the National Security Act, Kessler quickly found that the same types of records that fell under Exemption 1 were also protected under Exemption 3. Turning to Exemption 4, Kessler rejected the FBI's argument that disclosure would impair the agency's ability to get similar information in the future. She pointed out that "DOJ has not sufficiently explained how disclosure will make future contract solicitation submissions less reliable." She also rejected the agency's claim that disclosure could undercut the vendor's position by allowing potential competitors to obtain information. Here, she noted that "DOJ fails to fully explain the relevance of the fact that the vendor exclusively sells this type of equipment to law enforcement entities." She was far more satisfied with an in camera affidavit provided by the vendor. Here, she found that "public release of this information would cause serious competitive harm to the vendor. The vendor must diligently protect this information at every juncture. The vendor requires non-disclosure agreements from third-party commercial intermediaries, confidentiality agreements from employees, and does not share this information with competitors or the public. It would put the vendor at a distinct disadvantage in bid solicitations if its pricing information were made public." CREW argued that DOJ had placed too much reliance on the vendor's affidavit and that operating manuals for drones were publicly available. Kessler rejected both arguments. She noted that "CREW does not challenge the substance [of the vendor's claims]â€"that competitive harm will result from disclosureâ€"of the vendor and DOJ's assertions." As to the manuals, she pointed out that "CREW does not assert that the withheld materials are the same as those in the public domain, but does point to different drone manuals and training documents which are in the public domain. However, the existence of those materials and training documents do not indicate that the vendor's sensitive information is already public, nor does it necessarily diminish the vendor's concerns of competitive harm." Kessler then found that much of the information about the drones was protected by Exemption 7(E). To rebut the agency's claims that information about the use of drones by government agencies was not already publicly known, CREW pointed to various information from the Internet, as well as articles discussing the operational capabilities of drones. Kessler, however, pointed out that "this argument assumes that all drones are alike. While drones may generally face similar challenges across the board, it does not logically follow that all of the capabilities and limitations are similar, or that to know one is to know them all. DOJ explicitly states that the information withheld contains 'non-public investigative techniques and procedures.' The public information cited by CREW does not raise doubts about the veracity of DOJ's claim." CREW also questioned whether vendor and supplier identities could be protected under Exemption 7(E). Kessler agreed with the agency's argument that "disclosure of the vendor would, due to the vendor's niche market, reveal the equipment and services provides to the FBI." As to training materials, Kessler noted that "the training and equipment information, if disclosed, would reveal law enforcement techniques and procedures, which could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law."
Issues: Exemption 4 - Competitive harm, Exemption 4 - Impairment of agency, Exemption 7(E) - Unknown to public | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|