Case Detail
Case Title | BALES v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2018cv02779 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2018-11-28 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2020-03-09 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Rudolph Contreras | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | ROBERT BALES | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Robert 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | UNITED 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) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|