Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleJAMES MADISON PROJECT v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
DistrictDistrict of Columbia
CityWashington, DC
Case Number1:2007cv01382
Date Filed2007-07-30
Date Closed2010-08-30
JudgeJudge Ricardo M. Urbina
PlaintiffJAMES MADISON PROJECT
Case DescriptionThe 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

DefendantCENTRAL 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search for PRB-related records, including searching for other earlier versions of PRB regulations that had since been rescinded.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)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2007-07-301COMPLAINT against CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616005858) filed by JAMES MADISON PROJECT. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(jf, ) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
2007-07-30SUMMONS (3) Issued as to CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (jf, ) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
2007-07-302LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by JAMES MADISON PROJECT (jf, ) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
2007-09-073ANSWER to Complaint by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. Related document: 1 Complaint filed by JAMES MADISON PROJECT.(Mei, Vesper) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
2007-09-104STANDING ORDER Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on September 10, 2007. (jwd) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
2007-09-10MINUTE ORDER. The parties shall file a joint status report on the progress of the case on or before November 2, 2007. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 9/10/07. (dbk) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
2007-11-025STATUS REPORT (Joint) by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Mei, Vesper) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
2008-02-016NOTICE of Appearance by Bradley P. Moss on behalf of JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
2008-02-297Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mei, Vesper) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
2008-02-29MINUTE ORDER granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment will be due by April 25, 2008. Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Motion will be due by May 27, 2008. Defendants Reply will be due by June 24, 2008. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 2/28/08. (lcrmu1, ) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
2008-02-29Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: fendants Motion for Summary Judgment will be due by April 25, 2008. Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Motion will be due by May 27, 2008. Defendants Reply will be due by June 24, 2008 (jwd) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
2008-04-118Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mei, Vesper) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
2008-04-11MINUTE ORDER granting 8 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment will be due by May 30, 2008. Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Motion will be due by June 30, 2008. Defendants Reply will be due on July 28, 2008. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 4/11/08. (lcrmu1, ) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
2008-04-11Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment will be due by May 30, 2008. Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Motion will be due by June 30, 2008. Defendants Reply will be due on July 28, 2008 (jwd) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
2008-05-309MOTION for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Declaration Declaration of Martha M. Lutz, # 4 Exhibit A to Lutz Declaration, # 5 Exhibit B to Lutz Declaration, # 6 Exhibit C to Lutz Declaration, # 7 Exhibit D to Lutz Declaration, # 8 Exhibit E to Lutz Declaration, # 9 Exhibit F to Lutz Declaration, # 10 Declaration of Joseph W. Lambert)(Mei, Vesper) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
2008-06-2710Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
2008-06-27MINUTE ORDER granting 10 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiffs Opposition is due on or before July 14, 2008; and defendants reply is due on or before August 11, 2008. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 6/27/08. (lcrmu1, ) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
2008-06-27Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Plaintiffs Opposition is due on or before July 14, 2008; and defendants reply is due on or before August 11, 2008. (jwd) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
2008-07-1411Memorandum in opposition to re 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JAMES MADISON PROJECT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Zaid Rule 56(f) Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 1-A -- Zaid Op-Ed, # 3 Exhibit 1-B -- Zaid Book Review, # 4 Exhibit 2 - AR 10-1, # 5 Exhibit 3 - AR 10-16, # 6 Exhibit 4 - AR 70-5, # 7 Statement of Facts Response to Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute, # 8 Text of Proposed Order)(Zaid, Mark) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
2008-07-1412ERRATA to Correct Paragraph Mis-Numbering by JAMES MADISON PROJECT 11 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by JAMES MADISON PROJECT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Corrected Rule 56(f) Zaid Declaration)(Zaid, Mark) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
2008-08-1113REPLY to opposition to motion re 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Mei, Vesper) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
2008-09-0414NOTICE of Appearance by James C. Luh on behalf of CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Certification)(Luh, James) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
2009-03-2615ORDER granting in part and denying in part 9 the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 03/26/2009. (lcrmu1) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
2009-03-2616MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 03/26/2009. (lcrmu1) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
2010-08-12MINUTE ORDER. On or before 09/01/2010, the parties shall file a joint status report apprising the court as to the status of this case and addressing whether the case should remain open. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 08/12/2010. (lcrmu1) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
2010-08-13Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 9/1/2010 (mpt, ) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
2010-08-3017STIPULATION of Dismissal by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, JAMES MADISON PROJECT. (Mei, Vesper) (Entered: 08/30/2010)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff
Skip to toolbar