Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Washington has ruled that a 1967 report written by the House Appropriations Committee concerning the effectiveness of the Defense Department's communications system that was involved in the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty is a congressional record not subject to FOIA. Although the report was provided to the National Security Agency in 1968 and was referred to in a 1981 report declassified by the agency, the report itself was labeled Top Secret and marked "Not for release unless and until authorized by the Committee." Researcher Michelle Kinnucan submitted a FOIA request to the NSA for the House Report and a second request for encrypted traffic reports and other documents. Kinnucan also filed a FOIA request with the CIA asking for unredacted reports involving the U.S.S. Liberty attack. Since she found no Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit precedent on the issue of what constituted a congressional record, Senior District Court Judge Marsha Pechman turned to the D.C. Circuit's holding in ACLU v. CIA, 823 F.3d 655 (D.C. Cir. 2016), in which the D.C. Circuit established two inquiries �" (1) the facts and circumstances of the documents' creation, and (2) the conditions attached to the documents' transfer to the agency. Pechman noted that "here, the Committee clearly indicated its intent to control the report by marking it 'Not for release unless and until authorized by Committee' and 'Top Secret.'. . .[Further], the Committee's decisions to create the report and provide it to the NSA were squarely in line with Congress's oversight role. In the year after the attack, the Committee held a hearing in which it discussed the report and defense communications systems more broadly in the context of proposed appropriations." She observed that "while Plaintiff argues that Congress's references to the report in open hearing cuts against the conclusion that it intended to keep the report secret, that does not necessarily follow. If Congress wanted the report to be public, it could have released it in full. It did not and instead made sure the report would not be disclosed." She added that "the 'not for release' marking is an unequivocal expression of Congress's intent to maintain control over the report." However, Pechman found that the CIA's exemption claims pertaining to other responsive records under Exemption 1 (national security) and Exemption 3 (other statutes) were insufficiently supported, particularly where they pertained to large documents that were nearly 50 years old. She pointed out that "without more, it is difficult to determine whether these documents remain properly classified in full. Because the records are old, thirteen date to 1967, two to 1978 �" it is not self-evident that they implicate intelligence methods and sources that continue to deserve classification. In addition, the Court cannot just accept the CIA's assertion that it is impossible to segregate exempt from nonexempt records."
Issues: Exemption 3 - Statutory prohibition of disclosure, Exemption 1, Agency Record

FOIA Project Annotation: In a rare rebuke of claims made by the intelligence agencies under Exemption 1 (national security) and Exemption 3 (other statutes), a federal court in Washington has ruled, after reviewing the records in camera, that the CIA and the NSA failed to show why records about the attack by Israeli forces on a naval intelligence ship in international waters that left 34 dead and 173 wounded during the Six-Day War involving Israel, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq should not be disclosed to researcher Michelle Kinnucan in response to her FOIA request. Kinnucan sued the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Defense after the CIA produced 12 redacted documents and withheld three additional documents in full. The NSA also redacted one document under both exemptions. Judge Marsha Pechman ordered the documents to be produced for in camera review and after lengthy delays related to obtaining the necessary security clearance for one of her law clerks, the Court completed its review. Pechman noted that "the Court employs de novo review of agency compliance with FOIA." She then explained the Ninth Circuit's standard of review in national security cases, pointing out that "to ensure the FOIA exemptions have been properly asserted, the Court engages in a two-step review process. First, the Court reviews whether the agency has given 'an adequate factual basis' to support supporting under FOIA. Second, the Court determines whether FOIA's exemptions correctly apply. In making these determinations, the Court may also review records in camera. But because in camera review 'does not permit effective advocacy. . . in camera review of the withheld documents by the court is not an acceptable substitute for an adequate Vaughn index." She then indicated the importance of a sufficient Vaughn Index. She noted that "those affidavits 'must describe the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail, demonstrate that the information logically falls within the claimed exemptions, and show that the justifications are not controverted by contrary Vaughn index.' 'For this reason, the agency 'may not respond with boilerplate or conclusory statements.' "Rather, the 'agency must disclose as much information as possible without thwarting the claimed exemption's purpose." Pechman then pointed out that "FOIA also requires that any 'reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this subsection." She added that "a district court errs when it grants summary judgment where the agency did not provide plaintiff or the district court with specific enough information to determine whether the agency had properly segregated and disclosed factual portions of those documents that the agency had properly segregated and disclosed that the agency claimed were exempt. . ." Pechman explained that, while she had reviewed the records in camera, her determinations were based on the adequacy of the agencies' Vaughn indices, not her in camera review. Here, she found the CIA and NSA fell short in the sufficiency of their explanations. She found that the CIA had properly claimed Exemption 1 for one document but not for others. She indicated that the agency's Vaughn index "fails to adequately describe how redacted information falls within Exemption 1. There are multiple paragraphs in each document as being subject to Exemption 1. But the Vaughn index provides only the following boilerplate explanation of all of the redactions in each document: 'Exemption (b)(1) was asserted to protect classified intelligence methods and sources.' [The agency's] declaration adds some additional information, but that information is not document- or redaction-specific." As an example, Pechman pointed out that the affidavit stated that "most of the documents at issue contain information concerning CIA intelligence sources and methods. . .' Neither the Court nor Plaintiff can reasonably use this statement to identify what specific portions of the documents actually contain information about CIA intelligence sources and methods. While the Court gives deference to [the agency's] attestation, it remains too vague to intelligibly identify those portions of documents that might concern intelligence sources and methods." She added that as to the three documents withheld in full, "the Vaughn index repeats the boilerplate statement that 'Exemption (b)(1) was asserted to protect classified intelligence sources and methods.' But without more specificity, the Court cannot assess whether all 173 pages plausibly identify intelligence methods and sources." Pechman also faulted the CIA for claiming that those pages included information on covert CIA installations. She indicated that "but these documents total 173 pages and there is no explanation from the Vaughn index that all pages contain references to CIA installations or locations. Indeed, the Vaughn index makes no reference to covert locations. Even though the Court applies deference to the assertions, they are not specific enough to merit a finding that Exemption 1 applies to all of the information in these three documents." Pechman then found that the CIA and NSA had not shown that disclosure would harm national security. She explained that "the CIA and the NSA have failed to identify with sufficient care and detail how the revelation of the withheld and redacted information from 1967 to 1978 would reasonably be expected to result in current damage to national security. She indicated that "the CIA fails to provide a logical explanation as to why the redacted and withheld information could reasonably be expected to harm national security if revealed." She noted that the CIA affidavit spoke in generalities rather than specifics. She pointed out that "that is problematic because it does not allow the Court to measure the logic or plausibility of the assertions as to each document, particularly for lengthy documents. It also falls short of the agency's burden to 'make an effort to tailor the explanation for classification to the specific documents withheld.'" Pechman also found similar problems with the agencies' Exemption 3 claims. She rejected the CIA's contention that many withheld documents contained protectable pseudonyms. Instead, she noted that "the Court finds that the CIA's Vaughn index and its declaration fail to adequately explain what specific portions of the documents truly identify code words, pseudonyms, disclosure classifications, or dissemination control markings sufficient to satisfy Exemption 3. Without greater refinement, particularly in the specific identification of the subject matter of the withholdings and specific redactions, the assertion misses the mark." Pechman also found the agencies' segregability efforts were inadequate as well. She noted that "but the CIA provides no details that might allow the Court and Plaintiff to understand how these line-by-line analysis were performed and how the CIA made its ultimate conclusion on segregability as to all of the redacted and withheld documents. There are no document-specific statements, for example, that the materials withheld are so 'inextricably intertwined with non-exempt portion, that any segregable material would not be meaningful.'" Because "Ninth Circuit precedent suggests that the agencies here should be given further opportunity to supplement the Vaughn index and supporting declarations to support the claimed FOIA exemptions and segregability," Pechman sent the case back to allow the agencies to provide supplemental explanations of their exemption claims.evidence in the records of agency bad faith.'" She observed that "specificity is the defining requirement of the
Issues: Exemption 1 - Harm to national security, Exemption 3 - Statutory prohibition of disclosure

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2020-09-01	1	COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Receipt # AWAWDC-6569887) Attorney Caesar David Kalinowski added to party Michelle L Kinnucan(pty:pla), filed by Michelle L Kinnucan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Civil Cover Sheet, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons, # 8 Summons, # 9 Summons)(Kalinowski, Caesar) (Entered: 09/01/2020)
2020-09-02		Judge David W. Christel added. (RE) (Entered: 09/02/2020)
2020-09-02	2	Summons(es) Electronically Issued as to defendant(s) Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency. (Attachments: # 1 Summons- Defense Intelligence, # 2 Summons- National Security, # 3 Summons- Dept of Defense)(RE) (Entered: 09/02/2020)
2020-10-08	3	NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Katie Denise Fairchild on behalf of Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency. (Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 10/08/2020)
2020-10-08	4	ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9)(Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 10/08/2020)
2020-10-09	5	NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO A US MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DECLINATION OF CONSENT FORM. Each party will be deemed to have knowingly and voluntarily consented to proceed before a Magistrate Judge if this form is not returned by 10/16/2020. Please Note: Forms must not be electronically filed with the Court. (KEB) (Entered: 10/09/2020)
2020-10-09	6	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiff Michelle J Kinnucan re 2 Summons Issued, 1 Complaint, (Arnold, Allexia) (Entered: 10/09/2020)
2020-10-09	7	MINUTE ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Marsha J. Pechman for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge David W. Christel no longer assigned to case, by Clerk, William M McCool. (KEB) (Entered: 10/09/2020)
2020-10-19	8	ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND JOINT STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report due by 11/30/2020, FRCP 26(f) Conference Deadline is 11/16/2020, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 11/23/2020. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (GC) (Entered: 10/19/2020)
2020-11-25		MINUTE ORDER: At the parties' request, an extension of time to file the joint status report is granted. The report will be due on 1/26/2021. Failure to adhere to this deadline may result in sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this action. Authorized by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (GC) (Entered: 11/25/2020)
2021-01-26	9	APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Thomas Burke FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiff Michelle J Kinnucan (Fee Paid) Receipt No. AWAWDC-6899271 (Kalinowski, Caesar) (Entered: 01/26/2021)
2021-01-26	10	Stipulated MOTION and Status Report and [Proposed] Order , filed by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency. Noting Date 1/26/2021, (Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 01/26/2021)
2021-01-27	11	ORDER re 9 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Thomas R Burke for plaintiff Michelle J Kinnucan, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only. NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d). (CDA) (Entered: 01/27/2021)
2021-01-27	12	ORDER re Parties' 10 Stipulated Motion and Status Report. The parties shall provide this Court with a status update within 60 days. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (LH) (Entered: 01/27/2021)
2021-03-29	13	STATUS REPORT AND STIPULATED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency (Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 03/29/2021)
2021-03-30	14	ORDER re Parties' 13 Status Report and Stipulated Motion. The Court GRANTS the Parties' Motion and allows the Parties an additional 60 days to continue to confer. However, this will be the Parties' final extension. If they are unable to come to an agreement, they must propose a briefing schedule within 60 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) (Entered: 03/30/2021)
2021-06-01	15	STATUS REPORT AND STIPULATED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency (Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 06/01/2021)
2021-06-29	16	MINUTE ORDER. The Court GRANTS the Parties' stipulated motion. (Dkt. No. 15 .) The proposed briefing scheduled is adopted. Authorized by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) (Entered: 06/29/2021)
2021-07-16	17	AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Michelle J Kinnucan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)(Kalinowski, Caesar) (Entered: 07/16/2021)
2021-07-20	18	PRAECIPE re 17 Amended Complaint, with Praecipe Exhibit A by Plaintiff Michelle J Kinnucan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kalinowski, Caesar) (Entered: 07/20/2021)
2021-07-30	19	ANSWER to 17 Amended Complaint, by Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17)(Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 07/30/2021)
2021-08-27	20	MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed by Plaintiff Michelle J Kinnucan. Oral Argument Requested. Noting Date 10/29/2021 10/8/2021 (Kalinowski, Caesar) Modified to re-note per docket no. 24 on 9/17/2021 (SB). (Entered: 08/27/2021)
2021-08-27	21	DECLARATION of Michelle Kinnucan filed by Plaintiff Michelle J Kinnucan re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10)(Kalinowski, Caesar) (Entered: 08/27/2021)
2021-08-27	22	DECLARATION of Caesar Kalinowski filed by Plaintiff Michelle J Kinnucan re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Kalinowski, Caesar) (Entered: 08/27/2021)
2021-09-16	23	Stipulated MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER , filed by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency. Noting Date 9/16/2021, (Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 09/16/2021)
2021-09-17	24	ORDER granting Parties' 23 Stipulated Motion. Defendants will file their Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition by 10/1/2021. Plaintiff will file her Opposition and Reply by 10/15/2021. Defendants will file their Reply by 10/29/2021. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SB) (Entered: 09/17/2021)
2021-09-24	25	Stipulated MOTION AND [PROPOSED] PARTIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL , filed by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency. Noting Date 9/24/2021, (Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 09/24/2021)
2021-09-28	26	ORDER re Parties' 25 Stipulated Motion. All of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and any claim against Defendant, Department of Defense (DOD) that is based on a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to DIA are dismissed. Defense Intelligence Agency terminated. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(PM) (Entered: 09/28/2021)
2021-10-01	27	CROSS MOTION AND RESPONSE re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency. Noting Date 10/29/2021, (Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 10/01/2021)
2021-10-01	28	DECLARATION of Jonathan David Hubbard filed by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency re 27 CROSS MOTION AND RESPONSE re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 10/01/2021)
2021-10-01	29	DECLARATION of Linda M. Kiyosaki filed by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency re 27 CROSS MOTION AND RESPONSE re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 10/01/2021)
2021-10-01	30	DECLARATION of Vanna Blaine filed by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency re 27 CROSS MOTION AND RESPONSE re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 10/01/2021)
2021-10-15	31	REPLY, filed by Plaintiff Michelle J Kinnucan, TO RESPONSE to 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 27 CROSS MOTION AND RESPONSE re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Kalinowski, Caesar) (Entered: 10/15/2021)
2021-10-15	32	DECLARATION of Paul N. "Pete" McCloskey filed by Plaintiff Michelle J Kinnucan re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 27 CROSS MOTION AND RESPONSE re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Kalinowski, Caesar) (Entered: 10/15/2021)
2021-10-15	33	DECLARATION of Larry L. Bowen filed by Plaintiff Michelle J Kinnucan re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 27 CROSS MOTION AND RESPONSE re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Kalinowski, Caesar) (Entered: 10/15/2021)
2021-10-15	34	DECLARATION of Michael Morisy filed by Plaintiff Michelle J Kinnucan re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 27 CROSS MOTION AND RESPONSE re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Kalinowski, Caesar) (Entered: 10/15/2021)
2021-10-29	35	REPLY, filed by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency, TO RESPONSE to 27 CROSS MOTION AND RESPONSE re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 10/29/2021)
2021-10-29	36	DECLARATION of Katie D. Fairchild filed by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency re 27 CROSS MOTION AND RESPONSE re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 10/29/2021)
2021-10-29	37	DECLARATION of Sara K. Stevens filed by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency re 27 CROSS MOTION AND RESPONSE re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 10/29/2021)
2021-11-17		Set Hearings: Oral Argument Hearing set for 12/1/2021 at 01:00 PM before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. This hearing will be conducted remotely using the Zoom platform. (GC) (Entered: 11/17/2021)
2021-12-06		Reset Hearings: Oral Argument Hearing set for 12/16/2021 at 03:00 PM before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. This hearing will be conducted remotely using Zoom. (GC) (Entered: 12/06/2021)
2021-12-16	38	MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Grant Cogswell ; Pla Counsel: Caesar Kalinowski, Thomas Burke, Allexia Arnold ; Def Counsel: Katie Fairchild ; CR: Sheri Schelbert ; Time of Hearing: 3:00PM ; Oral Argument Hearing - Via Zoom held on 12/16/2021. The Court hears oral argument from the parties on MOTION for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 20 .) The Court takes this matter under advisement and will issue a written ruling by 12/29/2021. (GC) (Entered: 12/17/2021)
2021-12-20	39	TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Plaintiff Michelle J Kinnucan for proceedings held on 12/16/2021 re 38 In Court Hearing,,. Requesting Attorney: Caesar David Kalinowski. Posting of this Transcript Order form does not constitute an official request for transcript(s). If you have not already done so, you MUST contact the individual court reporter(s), Sheri Schelbert (sheri_schelbert@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8507) to make payment arrangements and secure your desired delivery time. (Kalinowski, Caesar) (Entered: 12/20/2021)
2021-12-28	40	ORDER denying Plaintiff's 20 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting Defendants' 27 Cross Motion on this issue. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SB) (Entered: 12/28/2021)
2022-01-03	41	NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Example- Motion Hearing held on 12/16/2021 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov . To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Sheri Schelbert, sheri_schelbert@wawd.uscourts.gov Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/4/2022, (Schelbert, Sheri) (Entered: 01/03/2022)
2022-01-06		Set Hearing: Telephone Conference set for 1/7/2022 at 10:00 AM before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (GC) (Entered: 01/06/2022)
2022-01-07	42	MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Grant Cogswell ; Pla Counsel: Caesar Kalinowski ; Def Counsel: Katie Fairchild ; CR: Debbie Zurn ; Time of Hearing: 9:30AM ; Telephone Conference held on 1/7/2022. Also present on the call is Linfield Scott "Scooter" Slade III. The Court discusses the logistics of handling classified documents in-camera. Mr. Slade requests to speak ex-parte with the Court. Plaintiff and Defendant do not object and orally waive their presence so the Court may speak ex-parte with Mr. Slade. (GC) (Entered: 01/07/2022)
2022-01-07	43	NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Allexia Arnold for Plaintiff Michelle J Kinnucan. (Arnold, Allexia) (Entered: 01/07/2022)
2022-01-11	44	TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency for proceedings held on 12/16/2021 re 41 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript,,, 38 In Court Hearing,,. Requesting Attorney: Katie Denise Fairchild. Posting of this Transcript Order form does not constitute an official request for transcript(s). If you have not already done so, you MUST contact the individual court reporter(s), Sheri Schelbert (sheri_schelbert@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8507) to make payment arrangements and secure your desired delivery time. (Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 01/11/2022)
2022-02-14	45	NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Nickolas Bohl on behalf of Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency. (Bohl, Nickolas) (Entered: 02/14/2022)
2022-04-26	46	APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY David Nordlinger FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiff Michelle J Kinnucan (Fee Paid) Receipt No. AWAWDC-7529859 (Kalinowski, Caesar) (Entered: 04/26/2022)
2022-04-26	47	ORDER re 46 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney David Nordlinger for Plaintiff Michelle J Kinnucan by Clerk Ravi Subramanian. No document associated with this docket entry, text only. NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d). (JWC) (Entered: 04/26/2022)
2022-11-04	48	ADDITIONAL ORDER on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. The Court has carefully reviewed Defendants' invocation of FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3 to withhold materials from portions of Documents 1-9, 14-15 and all of Documents 11-13. Except as to Document 1, the Court finds that Defendants have not met their burden to justify application of Exemptions 1 or 3 to withhold the information. And Defendants have not provided adequate detail to satisfy the Court that they have undertaken an adequate segregability analysis. The Court's in camera review confirms the inadequacies of the Vaughn index and supporting materials. But the Court finds that Defendants should be given one additional opportunity to address the Court's concerns. The Court will rule definitively on the FOIA claims after Defendants supplement the record and the Parties complete their supplemental briefing as specified in this Order. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SB) (Entered: 11/04/2022)
2022-11-21	49	MOTION for Extension of Time , filed by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 12/2/2022, (Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 11/21/2022)
2022-11-21	50	DECLARATION of Linda M. Kiyosaki filed by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency re 49 MOTION for Extension of Time (Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 11/21/2022)
2022-11-30	51	RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Michelle J Kinnucan, to 49 MOTION for Extension of Time . (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kalinowski, Caesar) (Entered: 11/30/2022)
2022-11-30	52	Joint Stipulated MOTION , filed by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency. Noting Date 11/30/2022, (Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 11/30/2022)
2022-12-02	53	ORDER granting Parties' 52 Joint Stipulated MOTION. The parties stipulate and agree that there is good cause for a 7-day extension, from 12/5/2022 to 12/12/2022 for Defendants to provide the supplemental filing indicated in this Court's Order, Dkt. 48 . Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SB) (Entered: 12/02/2022)
2022-12-02	54	REPLY, filed by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency, TO RESPONSE to 49 MOTION for Extension of Time (Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 12/02/2022)
2022-12-07	55	ORDER granting Defendants' 49 Motion for Extension of Time. Any supplemental Vaughn index and supporting declarations must be filed by no later than 1/6/2023. To the extent Defendants wish to file or present unredacted copies of any supporting declarations for ex parte in camera review, they must first seek and obtain leave of Court. Defendants must also brief the question of whether the Court may properly consider the ex parte declarations in ruling on the remaining issues in this matter. Defendants may file such a motion when they file the revised Vaughn index and any public versions of the supporting declarations whose unredacted counterparts they wish to present in camera. The deadline to do so is 1/6/2023. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SB) (Entered: 12/07/2022)
2023-01-06	56	MOTION for Leave TO SUBMIT CLASSIFIED DECLARATIONS FOR EX PARTE, IN CAMERA REVIEW , filed by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 1/27/2023, (Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 01/06/2023)
2023-01-06	57	BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency (Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 01/06/2023)
2023-01-06	58	DECLARATION of Linda M. Kiyosaki re 57 Brief by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency (Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 01/06/2023)
2023-01-06	59	DECLARATION of Vanna Blaine re 57 Brief by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 01/06/2023)
2023-01-20	60	Opposition BRIEF re 58 Declaration (non motion), 57 Brief, 59 Declaration (non motion) by Plaintiff Michelle J Kinnucan (Kalinowski, Caesar) (Entered: 01/20/2023)
2023-01-23	61	RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Michelle J Kinnucan, to 56 MOTION for Leave TO SUBMIT CLASSIFIED DECLARATIONS FOR EX PARTE, IN CAMERA REVIEW . (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kalinowski, Caesar) (Entered: 01/23/2023)
2023-01-27	62	REPLY, filed by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency, TO RESPONSE to 56 MOTION for Leave TO SUBMIT CLASSIFIED DECLARATIONS FOR EX PARTE, IN CAMERA REVIEW (Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 01/27/2023)
2023-01-27	63	REPLY BRIEF in support of re 57 Brief by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency. (Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 01/27/2023)
2023-01-27	64	DECLARATION of Vanna Blaine re 63 Brief - Reply by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency (Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 01/27/2023)
2023-01-27	65	DECLARATION of Linda M. Kiyosaki re 63 Brief - Reply by Defendants Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, National Security Agency (Fairchild, Katie) (Entered: 01/27/2023)
2023-02-16	66	ORDER granting Defendants' 56 Motion for Leave to Submit Classified Declarations for Ex Parte, In Camera Review. The Court ORDERS Defendants to submit the declarations for ex parte, in camera inspection as soon as practicable. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SB) (Entered: 02/16/2023)
2023-06-05	67	NOTICE of Change of Address/Change of Name of Attorney Thomas R Burke. Filed by Plaintiff Michelle J Kinnucan. (Burke, Thomas) (Entered: 06/05/2023)
2023-07-31	68	THIRD ORDER on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. The Court GRANTS the Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's FOIA claims. This resolves this matter and judgment shall be entered separately. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SB) (Entered: 07/31/2023)
2023-07-31	69	JUDGMENT BY COURT. Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and summary judgment is entered in Defendants' favor on all claims. (SB) (Entered: 07/31/2023)
Hide Docket Events