Case Detail
| Case Title | JAMES MADISON PROJECT v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2007cv01382 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2007-07-30 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2010-08-30 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Ricardo M. Urbina | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | JAMES MADISON PROJECT | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | The James Madison Project submitted a FOIA request to the CIA for guidelines pertaining to its Publications Review Board. JMP also requested a fee waiver. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, JMP filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [16] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Ricardo Urbina has ruled that the CIA conducted an adequate search and properly invoked Exemption 1 (national security), Exemption 2 (internal practices and procedures), Exemption 3 (other statutes), and Exemption 5 (privileges) to withhold portions of its internal regulations pertaining to its Prepublication Review Board. In response to a request by the James Madison Project, the agency originally searched seven divisions and located 12 responsive records. JMP was dissatisfied with the search and the agency conducted another search for PRB-related records, including searching for other earlier versions of PRB regulations that had since been rescinded. This search of only the PRB division turned up more responsive documents. JMP complained the agency should have contacted a former PRB chairman as well as searching records pertaining to two former CIA officers whose challenges to the prepublication review process had required the agency to change some of its procedures. But Urbina noted that "by arguing that the defendant should have searched through the other six divisions' records, that the defendant should have sought input from the former PRB Chairman and that the defendant's search should have produced documents related to the two former CIA officers, the plaintiff misconstrues the defendant's burden. The defendant need not show that it has 'actually uncovered every document extant,; it need only 'show that it made a good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested.' The court determines that the defendant's explanation of its rationale demonstrates that the searches were reasonably calculated to discover the requested documents." Approving of the Exemption 1 withholdings, Urbina rejected JMP's assertion that the agency "must elaborate on what 'insights into the CIA's past activities and clandestine operations' disclosure of the memorandum would provide." Instead, Urbina noted that "the defendant need only 'describe with reasonable specificity the material withheld and demonstrate that it has specifically tailored its description of the harm likely to result from release to each particular redaction.' The defendant has met this burden here by specifying what portions of the memorandum would pose a risk to national security it disclosed and how disclosure would threaten national security." JMP complained that Exemption 2 was not supported because the agency had not shown how a writer could trick the agency into "not noticing the existence of classified information. . .in a written document." Urbina agreed with the agency that "an individual who sought to publish classified information could better circumvent the PRB if he or she knew the procedures by which the PRB made its decisions." Urbina accepted the agency's Exemption 5 claims except for several PowerPoint slides. For two slides he noted that "because the defendant has failed to identify the role played by the author of the PowerPoint documents, the court is unable to assess the author's decisionmaking authority and the relationship between the documents' author and recipient."
Issues: Adequacy - Search, Exemption 1 - Harm to national security, Exemption 2 - Risk of circumvention, Exemption 3 - Statutory prohibition of disclosure, Exemption 5 - Privileges | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
