Case Detail
Case Title | LEOPOLD et al v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2014cv01056 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2014-06-24 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2016-04-11 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge James E. Boasberg | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | JASON LEOPOLD | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Investigative journalist Jason Leopold and MIT Ph.D. student Ryan Shapiro submitted a FOIA request to the CIA for records concerning the ongoing dispute between the agency and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence pertaining to the committee's ability to access classified information. Leopold and Shapiro requested expedited processing and a fee waiver. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and denied Leopold and Shapiro expedited processing, but made no decision on the fee waiver. After hearing nothing further from the agency, Leopold and Shapiro filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appeal | D.C. Circuit 16-5126 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [25] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge James Boasberg has ruled that the CIA conducted an adequate search for records concerning allegations that it had hacked into secure computers the agency had provided for staff of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee during its investigation of the use of torture by the U.S. In so doing, he dismissed multiple challenges from journalist Jason Leopold and researcher Ryan Shapiro questioning the completeness of the agency's search. After the CIA failed to respond to their request after two months, Leopold and Shapiro filed suit. Over the next year, the CIA produced 82 documents, disclosing 12 in full and 70 with redactions, and prepared a Vaughn index explaining the reasons it withheld the remaining 231 documents. Leopold and Shapiro chose not to challenge any of the exemptions but did question the agency's search. After consulting agency staff familiar with the incident, the CIA decided to search the Office of the Director, the Office of Public Affairs, the Office of Congressional Affairs, the Office of the General Counsel, the Office of the Inspector General, and the Office of Security using keywords designed to locate responsive records. Leopold and Shapiro argued the agency had not sufficiently explained how it determined when a potentially responsive record was non-responsive. But Boasberg noted that "if, upon closer inspection by CIA personnel, the document was 'clearly' irrelevant to the request, it was deemed 'non-responsive.'" The plaintiffs insisted they should be able to challenge the agency's non-responsiveness determinations and pointed to two cases from the Northern District of Californiaâ€"Dunaway v. Webster, 519 F. Supp. 1059 (N.D. Cal. 1981), and ACLU v. FBI, 2013 WL 3346845 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2013)â€"as supporting their claim. Boasberg, disagreed, noting that "both were cases in which certain documents were already before the court, and the parties were quibbling about the scope of certain redactions. That is not the case here, and with no suggestion that the agency improperly carried out its responsiveness determination, the Court is unwilling to require further and more detailed explanations on this front." Leopold and Shapiro also argued the agency should have provided duplicates that it found during the search because their request specifically asked for duplicates because they might provide more context and nuance. Although there is no legal basis on which to refuse to provide duplicates except a resources claim that producing such records is a waste of the agency's time and funds, Boasberg quickly agreed with the agency's position that once it produced all responsive records its disclosure obligations were at an end. He pointed out that "the government's obligations under FOIA are 'satisfied when an agency produces the requested pages.' While this does not mean that where there are similar but not identical documents, the government may choose which one to produce, 'it would be illogical and wasteful to require an agency to produce multiple copies of the exact same document.' The Court will not so require here." Leopold and Shapiro had also listed records systems drawn from the agency's Privacy Act systems of records notice that they wished the agency to search. The plaintiffs argued the agency had not searched all these systems. But without more evidence that those systems should contain responsive records, Boasberg was reluctant to require the agency to search more broadly. He noted that "plaintiffs have not offered any explanation as to why the specific Privacy Act systems of records identified in their request constitute leads that, on their face, should have been pursued, particularly given the agency's assertion that it searched the relevant offices that managed those systems." He emphasized that "requesters cannot simply demand that an agency carry out the search in a manner they wish by 'mere fiat.' Critical here, too, is that the agency has provided a reasonable explanation for why those purported leads would not assist it in executing its search." As a realistic matter, the agency should decide which records systems to search based on its understanding of where responsive records are most likely to exist. But agencies are also required to explain sufficiently why they decided not to search for records in locations requested by the requester rather than just unilaterally making that determination with no explanation. Boasberg also rejected the claim that "plaintiffs [should be] entitled to summary judgment merely because they might have preferred that the agency use one search over another. This is all the more relevant here where the agency has gone to great lengths at the beginning of the search process to ensure that its effort was designed to maximize responsive results."
Issues: Search - Reasonableness of search | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|