Case Detail
| Case Title | MANNING v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2015cv01654 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2015-10-08 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2017-01-11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Amit P. Mehta | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | CHELSEA MANNING | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Chelsea Manning, who was convicted of illegally disclosing classified information to Wikileaks, submitted a FOIA request to the FBI for records concerning her investigation and conviction. She indicated that she was willing to pay fees and requested expedited processing. The FBI denied Manning's request for expedited processing. She appealed the denial to the Office of Information Policy, which upheld the agency's decision to deny expedited processing. The FBI subsequently denied Manning's entire request on the basis of Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceeding). The agency also issued a Glomar response neither confirming nor denying the existence of some records. Manning appealed the decision to OIP, which upheld the agency's denial. Manning then filed an appeal with the Office of Government Information Services. OGIS told Manning that the agency's Exemption 7(A) claim prevented any effective mediation on its part. Manning then filed suit. Complaint issues: Exemption 7(A) - Categorical exemption, Determination - Glomar response, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Opinion/Order [19] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Amit Mehta has ruled that the FBI properly withheld all records concerning the investigation of unauthorized disclosures made by Bradley Manning to Wikileaks under Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceeding) because they relate to other ongoing investigations concerning unauthorized leaks by federal employees. Manning, who is now known as Chelsea, pled guilty of some charges and was subsequently convicted of espionage, theft, and computer fraud, and sentenced to 35 years in prison. She requested records concerning the FBI's investigation of her, as well as its investigation of alleged civilian co-conspirators. The FBI searched for records on Manning and denied her access based on Exemption 7(A). Manning appealed to the Office of Information Policy, which upheld the FBI's denial. Manning then appealed to the Office of Government Information Services, which also agreed that the FBI's records pertained to an ongoing investigation. Manning questioned how records concerning herself could be involved in an ongoing investigation since she had been convicted and sentenced. Explaining that he was required to give "substantial weight" to the agency's affidavits, Mehta pointed out that "the court has no reason to doubt that there is an ongoing investigation of individuals other than Plaintiff. The government repeatedly and explicitly states that an investigation is pending. To the court's knowledge, there have been no completed prosecutions since [the agency's supplemental affidavit was filed] which could weaken the agency's reliance on Exemption 7(A)." In response to Manning's claim that the agency had not explained the categories of records, Mehta found the FBI had divided the records into two functional categories and further subdivided those categories. Manning argued the agency should have separated information about her from its investigatory files concerning other investigations. Mehta noted that the FBI's indicated that "information about plaintiff was so commingled with other exempt information that it was inextricably intertwined and could not be reasonably segregated for release." Although the FBI had stated that it considered the segregability of the records, Manning argued that its quick denial suggested that it had not considered segregability. Here, Mehta noted, that the FBI "was already familiar with the types of records that were responsive to Plaintiff's request because it had previously reviewed that information in response to another FOIA request [submitted by EPIC]."
Issues: Exemption 7(A) - Categorical exemption | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
