Case Detail
Case Title | SMITH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2018cv00777 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2018-04-05 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | Open | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Tanya S. Chutkan | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | GRANT F. SMITH | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Grant Smith, founder of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, submitted FOIA requests to the Department of Energy for a two-page document entitled "Guidance on Release of Information Relating to the Potential for an Israeli Nuclear Capability." DOE released a nearly completely redacted version of the document, citing Exemption 1 (national security) and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques). Smith filed an administrative appeal, but the agency's denial decision was upheld. Smith's complaint is against both Energy and the Department of State, but his attachments have no correspondence with State. Smith ultimately filed suit against both the Energy Department and the State Department. Complaint issues: Exemption 1 - Harm to national security | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | JOHN J. SULLIVAN Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of State | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | RICK PERRY Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [22] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Tanya Chutkan has ruled that the Department of Energy properly redacted information pertaining to Israel's nuclear capabilities under Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques) in response to a FOIA request from researcher Grant Smith while also upholding the State Department's claim under Exemption 1 (national security) for the same records. Smith, founder of the Institute for Research: Middle East Policy, requested WNP-136, a two-page document entitled "Guidance on Release of Information Relating to the Potential for Israeli Nuclear Capacity." The agency disclosed a redacted version, claiming Exemption 7(E) and indicating State advised DOE that some information was protected under Exemption 1 as well. Smith filed an administrative appeal with DOE, which was denied. Smith filed suit against both DOE and State. He then submitted a separate FOIA request to State, asking it to disclose the redactions made under Exemption 1. State told Smith that the redacted material was properly classified and indicated that he could file an administrative appeal. In court, State claimed that Smith's suit against it was barred because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Chutkan agreed, noting that "here there is no question that Smith failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Putting aside the fact that, at the time he sued the DOS, Smith had not filed a FOIA with the DOS, after DOS responded to his belated request, Smith did not file an appeal." Smith argued that DOE could not claim Exemption 1 because information about Israel's nuclear capabilities was already a matter of public knowledge. But Chutkan observed that "each of Smith's proffered official acknowledgements fails for the same reason: none of them are directly attributable to the DOE. The D.C. Circuit has made clear that courts in this district 'do not deem "official" a disclosure made by someone other than the agency from which the information is being sought.'" Chutkan also approved the agency's Exemption 7(E) claim. Noting that Smith's challenges were "grounded in speculation," she pointed out that "Smith has provided no factual basis for this court to find that WNP-136's purpose is anything but to provide guidance on classification. . ."
Issues: Exemption 7(E) - Unknown to public, Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to Exhaust | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|