Case Detail
| Case Title | JAMES MADISON PROJECT v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2007cv01154 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2007-06-27 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2009-03-19 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Ricardo M. Urbina | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | JAMES MADISON PROJECT | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | The James Madison Project submitted a FOIA request to the CIA for CIA regulations on a number of personnel-related issues. The agency acknowledged receipt of JMP's request. The agency then denied the request. JMP filed an administrative appeal, but after hearing nothing further from the agency JMP filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [20] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Ricardo Urbina has ruled that the CIA conducted an adequate search for regulations pertaining to eight topics, ranging from personnel issues to prepublication review and FOIA implementation. Urbina also found that the agency had properly invoked Exemption 1 (national security), Exemption 2 (internal practices and procedures), and Exemption 3 (other statutes) to withhold portions of the regulations. The James Madison Project made the request in 2000, filing an appeal in 2002. When nothing more was heard about the appeal, JMP filed suit in 2007. JMP argued that "additional internal agency regulations might existâ€"as evidenced by the fact that various authorities require the defendant to implement internal regulations that were not produced in response to the plaintiff's request." But the agency responded by indicating that JMP "confuses the question of whether additional regulations exist with whether there are additional regulations that are actually responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request." Urbina noted that "because the [agency's] declaration explains that all of the defendant's internal regulations are maintained in one searchable records system and that the defendant searched that system for documents responsive to the plaintiff's request, the court concludes that the defendant's search method could reasonably be expected to produce the information requested. Further, the court is not persuaded by the plaintiff's contention that the fact that various statutes require the promulgation of internal CIA regulations not produced in response to the plaintiff's request 'reveals a positive indication of overlooked materials.' As the defendant correctly observes, the relevant question is not whether the defendant failed to produce additional internal regulations, but rather whether the defendant failed to produce additional internal regulations responsive to plaintiff's request. Because the plaintiff has pointed to nothing that would create a substantial doubt as to whether the defendant overlooked additional responsive regulations, the court holds that the defendant has demonstrated beyond material doubt that its search was reasonable." JMP argued that the agency's affidavits contained only boilerplate explanations. But Urbina pointed out that "the defendant withheld many of the materials based on the same or similar security concerns, but the Vaughn index offers an individualized assessment of each document withheld under Exemption 1. Further, the [affidavit] explains that its withholdings were based in part on the 'mosaic' theory, which posits that pieces of information that are innocuous on their own can create a security threat when viewed as a whole. As a result, the court concludes, based on the [affidavit] and the Vaughn index, that the defendant has satisfied its burden of offering a 'plausible assertion' that the information withheld was properly classified." Urbina upheld the agency's claims under Exemption 2, finding that disclosure of training and security clearance policies could lead to circumvention of the regulations. Although JMP argued that the agency failed "to establish that the documents withheld are too trivial to warrant disclosure," Urbina allowed the agency to withhold a wide range of employee-conduct regulations because they were predominantly internal and of little public interest.
Issues: Adequacy - Search, Exemption 1 - Harm to national security, Exemption 2 - Risk of circumvention, Exemption 3 - Statutory prohibition of disclosure | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
