Case Detail
Case Title | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2017cv00414 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2017-03-08 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2018-02-07 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Christopher R. Cooper | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the CIA for records concerning the CIA's unclassified assessment of Russian interference in the U.S. election. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Judicial Watch filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Adequacy - Search, Litigation - Vaughn index, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [17] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Christopher Cooper has ruled that the CIA properly invoked a Glomar response neither confirming nor denying the existence of records in response to a request from Judicial Watch for the 2016 White House report on Russian meddling after the report was referenced in a Wall Street Journal article pertaining to a demand from House Intelligence Committee Member Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) that the Obama administration release the report. Judicial Watch argued that the CIA had already publicly acknowledged the existence of the report through a January 2017 report issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence about Russian attempts to interfere in the U.S. election, which was prepared by the CIA, the FBI and the NSA. Cooper rejected Judicial Watch's claim, noting that "but even if the 2017 Assessment did prove that the CIA was responsible for that information, it still does not amount to a public acknowledgement that can overcome a Glomar response. This is because Plaintiff requested a specific document: 'a copy of the unclassified assessment or report identified in the Wall Street Journal article. And nowhere does the 2017 Assessment acknowledge the existence of a CIA report assessing Moscow's interference in foreign elections. The only person alleged to have acknowledged the existence of that report is Congressman Mike Turner when he spoke to the Wall Street Journal. Needless to say, this does not constitute a public acknowledgement by the Agency." Cooper added that "here Judicial Watch has not requested all documents related to a particular topic; rather, it has requested one, particular document. And the 2017 Assessment's brief reference to Russia's interference in European elections is not 'an agency record' that acknowledges the existence of that particular document." Cooper observed that "while it may be that the CIA does in fact have the report referenced in the Wall Street Journal article, the Court's inference that a record exists cannot stand in for a Plaintiff's showing of an official acknowledgment. Participating in intelligence community-wide assessments about related topics does not amount to a public acknowledgement that the CIA has a specific document." Cooper found that both Exemption 1 (national security) and Exemption 3 (other statutes) provided an adequate basis for the agency's Glomar response.
Issues: Determination - Glomar response, Public domain, Exemption 1 - Harm to national security, Exemption 3 - Statutory prohibition of disclosure | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|