Case Detail
Case Title | Kuzma v. Central Intelligence Agency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | Western District of New York | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Buffalo | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2013cv01175 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2013-12-06 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2015-05-07 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Hon. William M. Skretny | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | Michael Kuzma | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Michael Kuzma requested all records about himself from the CIA. The agency responded by indicating that it found no records. Kuzma appealed the agency's decision and the agency denied his appeal. Kuzma then filed suit. Complaint issues: disclosure of non-exempt records, expedited proceedings, attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | Central Intelligence Agency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [16] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in New York has ruled that the CIA conducted an adequate search for records concerning Michael Kuzma and properly invoked a Glomar response neither confirming nor denying the existence of records pertaining to any classified connection the agency might have with Kuzma. While Kuzma's request asked for all records referring to him, his primary focus was on records and photographs of a protest outside CIA headquarters on January 16, 2010 in which Kuzma participated. The agency searched its National Clandestine Service and its Directorate of Support for responsive records and found no records. By issuing a Glomar response the agency effectively indicated that it would not search any classified records and does not imply any classified connection with Kuzma. After the agency denied Kuzma's administrative appeal, he filed suit. He argued the agency had failed to adequately describe its search because its Vaughn index was insufficient and because it did not identify the agency personnel conducting the search, the search terms used, whether all files likely to contain responsive records were searched, and whether potentially responsive records had been destroyed. Finding the agency's affidavit sufficiently detailed, the court noted that the affidavit "discloses that the threat-assessment unit and individuals acting as 'special policemen' to protect CIA headquarters also searched for any photographs taken during any protests in January 2010." The court observed that "all files likely to contain responsive documents were searched (those in the NCS and DS directorates), the search term used ('Michael Kuzma') [was identified], and no potentially responsive records were ever destroyed or transferred to another agency. This establishes the sufficiency of the CIA's search." Kuzma argued that the agency was "seeking to avoid public embarrassment and conceal its illegal monitoring of domestic political dissent." But the court disagreed, pointing out 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 January 16, 2010 protest."
Issues: Adequacy - Search, Determination - Glomar response | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|