Case Detail
| Case Title | Kinney vs Central Intelligence Agency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | Western District of Washington | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Tacoma | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 3:2016cv05777 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2016-09-12 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2017-05-05 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Benjamin H. Settle | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | Leslie G Kinney | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Leslie Kinney submitted a FOIA request to the CIA for records concerning Harold Nichols, who had served with the Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor to the CIA, during World War II. The agency issued a Glomar response neither confirming nor denying the existence of records concerning Nichols. Kinney filed an appeal, which was upheld by the agency. Kinney then filed suit. Complaint issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Central Intelligence Agency CIA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Appeal | Ninth Circuit 17-35384 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Opinion/Order [13] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Washington has ruled that the CIA was required to participate in a Rule 26(f) discovery conference in response to a suit filed by Leslie Kinney, but that because of the sensitive nature of any potentially responsive records, the CIA will not be required to provide any initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1). Rejecting the agency's request to be excused from the discovery conference requirement, the court noted that "Defendant lacks any basis to fear improper discovery prior to discussing these issues with Plaintiff, as discovery is prohibited prior to the Rule 26(f) conference. Had Defendant simply fulfilled its obligations to confer with Plaintiff under Rule 26(f), it appears very likely that its concerns could have been resolved without requiring any Court intervention." Granting the CIA's request to be excused from initial discovery, the court observed that "in this case, in order to identify a specified individual as an intelligence source for the CIA, Plaintiff seeks potentially classified CIA documents that are almost certainly exempt from FOIA disclosure. Although Plaintiff is correct that the requested documents are likely quite old, the mere passage of time does not mean these documents are no longer exempt from FOIA requests. Therefore, because this case potentially implicates highly sensitive information, and because it is likely to be resolved on summary judgment, the Court finds it prudent to relieve Defendant of its initial disclosure obligations under Rule 26(a)."
Opinion/Order [22]Issues: Litigation - Discovery FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Washington has ruled that the CIA properly invoked a Glomar response neither confirming nor denying the existence of records in response to Leslie Kinney's request for records on James Harold Nichols, who Kinney claimed had served as a covert operative for the U.S. during and after World War II. Finding the agency's Glomar response was appropriate under Exemption 1 (national security), the court noted that "the CIA's affidavit reasonably explains how confirming the existence or nonexistence of the records sought would reveal an unacknowledged human intelligence source. . ." Kinney argued that the agency had publicly acknowledged the existence of records when he was told by a CIA employee that if the agency found records it might need to coordinate its response with other agencies. The court observed that "while the statement made to Plaintiff by the CIA representative could be construed as evidence that such records exist, it clearly falls short of the 'official' documented acknowledgement necessary to override an otherwise valid exemption." The court also rejected Kinney's assertion that the age of the records suggested that disclosure would not cause harm to national security. The court pointed out that "courts have routinely accepted the CIA's logical justification for its invocation of the Glomar response when dealing with records regarding alleged, long-deceased human sources."
Issues: Determination - Glomar response, Exemption 1 - Harm to national security | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
