Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleBALES v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DistrictDistrict of Columbia
CityWashington, DC
Case Number1:2018cv02779
Date Filed2018-11-28
Date Closed2020-03-09
JudgeJudge Rudolph Contreras
PlaintiffROBERT BALES
Case DescriptionRobert Bales submitted a FOIA request to the Department of State for records concerning seven Afghan men who were called to the United States to testify at Bales' court-martial. After hearing nothing further from the agency, Bales filed suit.
Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Adequacy - Search, Litigation - Vaughn index, Litigation - Attorney's fees

DefendantUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Documents
Docket
Complaint
Complaint attachment 1
Complaint attachment 2
Complaint attachment 3
Complaint attachment 4
Complaint attachment 5
Opinion/Order [16]
FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Rudolph Contreras has ruled that the Department of State properly issued a Glomar response neither confirming nor denying the existence of records in response to Robert Bales' FOIA request for information about visas that were issued for seven Afghani witnesses who testified at his court-marital for the 2012 murder of 16 Afghani citizens when Bales was stationed in Afghanistan with the U.S. Army. Bales' court-martial was held in the state of Washington in 2013 and included the seven Afghani witnesses. In September 2018, Bales requested information about visas issued to the witnesses as well as biometric data associated with the visas. State issued a Glomar response, claiming the existence of records was protected by Exemption 3 (other statutes) and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). Bales argued that the agency's claim was not truly a Glomar response because the agency implicitly admitted that records existed. Contreras disagreed, noting instead that "the Plaintiff does not point to any language in which the Department's declarant directly acknowledges the existence of records, and, to the extent that Plaintiff is relying on inferential reasoning, he does not explain his logic." Contreras found the agency's Exemption 6 claim supported its Glomar response. Bales argued that the agency was being disingenuous by suggesting it was trying to protect the privacy of the seven witnesses. But Contreras pointed out that "the Department's motives are not part of the FOIA analysis, so even if the Plaintiff is correct that the Department is not genuinely interested in protecting the Afghan witnesses' privacy, it would not matter. Exemption 6 is implicated because disclosing whether the records exist would disclose information 'applying to' each Afghan witness." Contreras also rejected Bales' argument that he had identified a public interest in disclosure of the records. Contreras pointed out that "because the public interest in exoneration of the wrongfully-convicted would not be advanced if the Department were to disclose whether it had visa records pertaining to the Afghan witnesses, the Afghan witnesses' privacy interest in information pertaining to their immigration status and activities outweighs any public interest in disclosure."
Issues: Determination - Glomar response, Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy
User-contributed Documents
 
Docket Events (Hide)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2018-11-281COMPLAINT against UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-5811801) filed by ROBERT BALES. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Summons Atty General, # 4 Summons Dept of State, # 5 Summons U.S. Atty.)(Maher, John) (Entered: 11/28/2018)
2018-11-28Case Assigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras. (zmd) (Entered: 11/28/2018)
2018-11-292SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to All Defendants, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Notice and Consent)(zef, ) (Entered: 11/29/2018)
2018-12-103NOTICE of Appearance by Paul Cirino on behalf of UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Cirino, Paul) (Entered: 12/10/2018)
2018-12-264MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cirino, Paul) (Entered: 12/26/2018)
2018-12-27MINUTE ORDER granting 4 Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer: It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by January 24, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on December 27, 2018. (lcrc2) (Entered: 12/27/2018)
2018-12-27Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 1/24/2019. (gdf) (Entered: 12/27/2018)
2019-01-245Unopposed MOTION to Stay in Light of Lapse in Appropriations by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Cirino, Paul) (Entered: 01/24/2019)
2019-01-24MINUTE ORDER granting 5 Motion to Stay: It is hereby ORDERED that this case is STAYED until appropriations are restored to the Department of Justice. Defendant's response to the complaint, previously due on January 24, 2019, is now due within 30 days of appropriations being restored. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on January 24, 2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 01/24/2019)
2019-02-256ANSWER to Complaint by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE.(Cirino, Paul) (Entered: 02/25/2019)
2019-02-25MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall meet, confer, and submit a joint status report, including a proposed briefing schedule by March 12, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on February 25, 2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 02/25/2019)
2019-02-26Set/Reset Deadlines: Proposed Briefing Schedule due by 3/12/2019; Status Report due by 3/12/2019. (tj) (Entered: 02/26/2019)
2019-03-127Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Cirino, Paul) (Entered: 03/12/2019)
2019-03-12MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 7 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties will file another joint status report by April 15, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on March 12, 2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 03/12/2019)
2019-04-04Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 4/15/2019 (tj) (Entered: 04/04/2019)
2019-04-158Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Cirino, Paul) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
2019-04-15MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 8 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report by May 6, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on April 15, 2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
2019-04-18Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 5/6/2019. (tj) (Entered: 04/18/2019)
2019-05-069Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Cirino, Paul) (Entered: 05/06/2019)
2019-05-06MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 9 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report by June 19, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on May 6, 2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 05/06/2019)
2019-05-22Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 6/19/2019 (tj) (Entered: 05/22/2019)
2019-06-1910Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Cirino, Paul) (Entered: 06/19/2019)
2019-06-19MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 10 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report by July 3, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on June 19, 2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 06/19/2019)
2019-06-28Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 7/3/2019 (tj) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
2019-07-0311Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Cirino, Paul) (Entered: 07/03/2019)
2019-07-03MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 11 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the following schedule will govern proceedings in this case: (1) Defendant's motion for summary judgment is due on August 2, 2019; (2) Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to Defendant's motion is due on September 2, 2019; (3) Defendant's reply and opposition to Plaintiff's motion is due on October 2, 2019; and (4) Plaintiff's reply is due on October 16, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on July 3, 2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 07/03/2019)
2019-07-05Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 9/2/2019. Response to Cross Motions due by 10/2/2019. Reply to Cross Motions due by 10/16/2019. Summary Judgment motions due by 8/2/2019. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 9/2/2019. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/2/2019. (tj) (Entered: 07/05/2019)
2019-08-0212MOTION for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration of Eric F. Stein w/ Exhibits 1-4, # 3 Statement of Facts, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Cirino, Paul) (Entered: 08/02/2019)
2019-09-0413Memorandum in opposition to re 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ROBERT BALES. (Maher, John) (Entered: 09/04/2019)
2019-09-1914REPLY to opposition to motion re 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Cirino, Paul) (Entered: 09/19/2019)
2020-03-0615ORDER granting 12 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 3/6/2020. (lcrc2) (Entered: 03/06/2020)
2020-03-0616MEMORANDUM OPINION granting 12 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 3/6/2020. (lcrc2) (Entered: 03/06/2020)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff
Skip to toolbar