UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) No. 18-cv-03112 (KBJ) CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, ) ) Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The James Madison Project and Jefferson Morley (“Plaintiffs”) have filed a complaint against the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) seeking records regarding “any association or contractual agreements with (a) President Bush, (b) Zapata Petroleum Corporation or (c) Zapata Offshore Corporation . . . from 1953 to March 1, 1971.” (1st Am. Compl., ECF No. 9, ¶¶ 3–5, 11.) Before this Court at present is the CIA’s motion for summary judgment (see Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 18), which maintains that the CIA “conducted a reasonable search of agency records” and “disclosed all non-exempt responsive records” consistent with its obligations under the FOIA (Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 18-1, at 7). 1 The CIA additionally argues that it properly withheld responsive records or portions thereof under FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, 6, and 7(C), and that it appropriately invoked the Glomar response to “refuse[] to confirm or deny maintaining records that would show a classified association[.]” (Id. at 14, 17.) 1 Page number citations to the documents that the parties have filed refer to the numbers automatically assigned by the Court’s electronic case filing system. Plaintiffs concede that the CIA adequately searched its records and properly invoked Exemption 3 and the Glomar response. (See Pls.’ Mem. in Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pls.’ Opp’n”), ECF No. 19, at 5.) Plaintiffs insist, however, that the CIA has improperly withheld information under Exemptions 1, 6, and 7(C), and that it has failed to establish its compliance with the FOIA’s segregability requirements. (See id. at 8–15.) Upon considering the parties’ submissions, this Court is satisfied that Exemption 1 has been properly invoked. However, due to the conclusory statements in the CIA’s declarations, the Court is not in a position to evaluate whether the agency has properly invoked Exemptions 6 and 7(C), or whether the agency has disclosed all reasonably segregable materials. Accordingly, the CIA’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. I. FOIA Exemption 1 permits the withholding of records that are “(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1). In the instant case, the CIA relies on Executive Order 13526, which includes among its list of classifiable materials government records that “pertain[] to . . . intelligence activities (including covert action), [or] intelligence sources or methods[.]” Exec. Order No. 13526, § 1.4(c), 75 Fed. Reg. 707 (Dec. 29, 2009); see also id. § 1.1(a)(2). Executive Order 13526 allows such information to be classified by a government official with “original classification authority” if the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals