Case Detail
| Case Title | SACK v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2012cv01755 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2012-10-30 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2015-10-14 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Christopher R. Cooper | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | KATHRYN SACK | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that the FBI failed to show that it had conducted an adequate search for records concerning government use of polygraphs for employment purposes and that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms improperly claimed Exemption 2 (internal practices and procedures) and Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege) to withhold communications with OPM concerning the re-approval of its polygraph regulations. As a result of his ruling on Exemption 2 and Exemption 5, Cooper also questioned the validity of the agency's remaining Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques) claim. University of Virginia Ph.D. student Kathryn Sack made a series of requests to agencies focused on polygraph bias. While Cooper accepted the overall thrust of many of the FBI's searches, he found the agency had failed to show the extent to which it had searched for records concerning the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment, a Defense Department component responsible for training of polygraph examiners and a location to which Sack was referred at least five times during the processing of her requests. Because of the apparent importance of DACA, Sack contended the agency must have more records concerning DACA. Cooper noted that the agency's affidavit "does not indicate whether the agency searched specifically for records regarding DACA. Nor does it reveal whether employees searched all hardcopy records or only a selection, or what terms they used to search electronic records." He added that "the government's description of its search indicates it may have misconstrued Sack's request. While she asked for records pertaining to DACA broadly, the FBI appears only to have searched for records pertaining to polygraph bias, which would have excluded records regarding DACA that were unrelated to bias research." ATF had withheld portions of ATF Order 2123.1on its pre-employment polygraph special agent screening program and a portion of an email to OPM citing a portion of the order and providing a clarifying interpretation of that provision. Sack acknowledged that the order pertained to personnel matters, but argued that it pertained to a non-trivial matter and was of genuine public interest. ATF contended that the records were not of any public interest. Cooper, however, pointed out that "how government agencies use polygraphs to screen employees is not a trivial matter like the 'use of parking facilities or regulations of lunch hours…,' which the Supreme Court has cited as examples of documents than can be withheld under Exemption 2. The public may well want to know, as Sack does, how agencies employ somewhat-controversial polygraph techniques to screen job applicants." ATF also claimed Exemption 5 applied to the email to OPM. Cooper disagreed, noting that "it is well established that an agency's regulations and settled regulatory interpretations are not covered by the deliberative process privilege. At face value, then, the redacted portion of the email cannot be withheld under Exemption 5 because it provides ATF's interpretation of its regulation, and nothing indicates that this interpretation was in any way novel." ATF contended that the email referred to future regulation. But Cooper indicated that "the D.C. Circuit held, however, that a document explaining existing policy 'cannot be considered deliberative' simply because it was created to help make decisions about future policies." Finding the agency's explanation of its 7(E) claims met "the highly deferential standard the Court must apply under 7(E)," in light of his ruling rejecting the agency's Exemption 2 and Exemption 5 claims for the email, Cooper decided to send the Exemption 7(E) claim back to the agency to determine if the information could be segregated. Complaint issues: Adequacy - Search, Exemption 2 - Personnel practices, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Exemption 7(E) - Unknown to public, Segregability - Disclosure of all non-exempt records | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Appeal | D.C. Circuit 15-5341 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [29] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that the FBI failed to show that it had conducted an adequate search for records concerning government use of polygraphs for employment purposes and that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms improperly claimed Exemption 2 (internal practices and procedures) and Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege) to withhold communications with OPM concerning the re-approval of its polygraph regulations. As a result of his ruling on Exemption 2 and Exemption 5, Cooper also questioned the validity of the agency's remaining Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques) claim. University of Virginia Ph.D. student Kathryn Sack made a series of requests to agencies focused on polygraph bias. While Cooper accepted the overall thrust of many of the FBI's searches, he found the agency had failed to show the extent to which it had searched for records concerning the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment, a Defense Department component responsible for training of polygraph examiners and a location to which Sack was referred at least five times during the processing of her requests. Because of the apparent importance of DACA, Sack contended the agency must have more records concerning DACA. Cooper noted that the agency's affidavit "does not indicate whether the agency searched specifically for records regarding DACA. Nor does it reveal whether employees searched all hardcopy records or only a selection, or what terms they used to search electronic records." He added that "the government's description of its search indicates it may have misconstrued Sack's request. While she asked for records pertaining to DACA broadly, the FBI appears only to have searched for records pertaining to polygraph bias, which would have excluded records regarding DACA that were unrelated to bias research." ATF had withheld portions of ATF Order 2123.1on its pre-employment polygraph special agent screening program and a portion of an email to OPM citing a portion of the order and providing a clarifying interpretation of that provision. Sack acknowledged that the order pertained to personnel matters, but argued that it pertained to a non-trivial matter and was of genuine public interest. ATF contended that the records were not of any public interest. Cooper, however, pointed out that "how government agencies use polygraphs to screen employees is not a trivial matter like the 'use of parking facilities or regulations of lunch hours…,' which the Supreme Court has cited as examples of documents than can be withheld under Exemption 2. The public may well want to know, as Sack does, how agencies employ somewhat-controversial polygraph techniques to screen job applicants." ATF also claimed Exemption 5 applied to the email to OPM. Cooper disagreed, noting that "it is well established that an agency's regulations and settled regulatory interpretations are not covered by the deliberative process privilege. At face value, then, the redacted portion of the email cannot be withheld under Exemption 5 because it provides ATF's interpretation of its regulation, and nothing indicates that this interpretation was in any way novel." ATF contended that the email referred to future regulation. But Cooper indicated that "the D.C. Circuit held, however, that a document explaining existing policy 'cannot be considered deliberative' simply because it was created to help make decisions about future policies." Finding the agency's explanation of its 7(E) claims met "the highly deferential standard the Court must apply under 7(E)," in light of his ruling rejecting the agency's Exemption 2 and Exemption 5 claims for the email, Cooper decided to send the Exemption 7(E) claim back to the agency to determine if the information could be segregated.
Opinion/Order [47]Issues: Adequacy - Search, Exemption 2 - Personnel practices, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Exemption 7(E) - Unknown to public, Segregability - Disclosure of all non-exempt records FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Christopher Cooper has ruled that the FBI properly withheld records concerning its use of polygraphs under Exemption 2 (internal practices and procedures), Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege), and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques) from researcher Kathryn Sack. Resolving the remaining exemption claims in Sack's case against Justice, Cooper first agreed that information about the selection process for FBI polygraph examiners was personnel information protected by Exemption 2. In a somewhat literal reading of the Supreme Court's decision in Milner v. Dept of Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (2011) in which the Court found that Exemption 2 applied only to personnel-related records and did not cover non-personnel records where disclosure risked circumvention of law or regulation, Cooper pointed out that "under Milner's logic, documents concerning the use of certain technologies, such as polygraph techniques, by personnel would not be covered by this exemption, as this Court concluded in its previous Order. But documents relating to 'the selection' or 'placement' of employeesâ€"even those whose job descriptions require that they use those technologies later onâ€"would be covered by Exemption (b)(2)." The problem with this interpretation, however, is that while Milner purposely reined in the vast over-reach of the so-called "high-2" prong protecting records where disclosure could risk circumvention of law or regulation, it did so by indicating that the exemption's application reached only traditional personnel-related records. But the exemption has always been thought to cover only mundane administrative matters which are of no public interest. The criteria used for selecting polygraph examiners would certainly seem to be of sufficient public interest to pass that threshold. Sack argued that an internal departmental recommendation concerning the feasibility of hiring non-agent polygraph examiners represented the final agency decision and, thus, was not predecisional under Exemption 5. Cooper disagreed, noting that "because the withheld paragraph was generated by an agency department 'before agency policy was adopted' by the FBI Director, and because it reflects the exchange of ideas within the agency, in that its recommendation was not adopted, the FBI was justified in withholding this paragraph under Exemption (b)(5)." Cooper found information about how FBI agents conduct polygraph examinations was protected by Exemption 7(E). He indicated that 'disclosing the procedures and techniques the FBI uses to conduct polygraph examinations would weaken their effectiveness at tracking and interpreting responses to questioning during such examinations, which would thereby weaken the effectiveness of polygraph examinations as a law enforcement tool."
Issues: Exemption 2 - Personnel practices, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Predecisional, Exemption 7(E) - Investigative methods or techniques | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
