Abramson v. F.B.I., 79-2500

Decision Date24 October 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79-2500,79-2500
Parties, 6 Media L. Rep. 2329 Howard S. ABRAMSON, Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Sharon T. Nelson, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Howard S. Scher, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., with whom Alice Daniel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles F. C. Ruff, U. S. Atty. and Leonard Schaitman, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for appellees.

Before WRIGHT, Chief Judge, and MIKVA and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge HARRY T. EDWARDS.

HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge:

This appeal raises an issue concerning the obligation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to furnish information pursuant to a citizen request made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 1 During the period from 1969 through 1974, during the incumbency of former President Nixon, the FBI transmitted documents pertaining to various public personalities to the White House; these documents were compiled by the FBI in response to requests received from the White House. Petitioner, Howard S. Abramson, initially sought to obtain these documents through a request for information, under the FOIA, which was submitted to the FBI in June of 1976. After several attempts to secure the documents from the FBI proved unsuccessful, Petitioner filed suit on December 20, 1977 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to compel disclosure.

During the pendency of the suit in District Court, the FBI reprocessed Abramson's request and provided him with a portion of the materials sought. However, in response to the request for the remaining unreleased documents, the FBI asserted three statutory exemptions from the disclosure requirements of the FOIA. In particular, the FBI claimed that the disputed documents were protected from disclosure under Exemptions (b)(1), 2 (b)(7)(C), 3 and (b) (7)(D). 4

Following several hearings before the District Court, the issues narrowed; as a consequence, the sole question remaining for resolution on this appeal is the applicability of a claimed exemption under section (b)(7)(C). 5 The documents here in question include one letter, with attachments, see note 12, infra, referred to as "name check" responses. These "name checks" are summaries of information from FBI files on certain public personalities which had been prepared pursuant to requests received from the White House. The District Court found that "there has been absolutely no showing that these particular records were compiled for law enforcement purposes," and ruled that, since "the defendants have failed to meet their burden ... summary judgment will be granted in favor of the plaintiff on this point." 6 However, the District Court also found that the disputed documents were "exempt from disclosure pursuant to exemption (7)(C) because disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 7 Petitioner challenges this latter ruling denying disclosure of the requested documents.

Upon a careful review of the record in this case, we find that the District Court misapplied the law with respect to the applicability of Exemption (7)(C) to the "name check" summaries. We therefore reverse on this point, with an instruction that the summaries be released to Petitioner. With regard to the materials attached to the "name check" summaries, we remand for further proceedings for a determination by the District Court as to whether the attachments were "compiled for law enforcement purposes" and, if so, whether these documents are thus exempt from disclosure under section (7)(C).

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner, a professional journalist, has stated that "(t)he requests which are the subject of this lawsuit grow directly out of (his) interest in the extent to which the White House may have used the F.B.I. and its files to obtain derogatory information about political opponents and those that it perceived as enemies." App. at 11.

Petitioner first filed his FOIA request on June 23, 1976, App. 5, in a letter to Clarence M. Kelley, then the Director of the FBI. Petitioner's request sought the following documents:

Copies of any and all information contained in your agency's files showing or indicating the transmittal of any documents or information from the FBI to the White House, or any White House aides, for the years 1969 and 1970, concerning the following individuals: Lowell P. Weicker, Jr.; Thomas J. Meskill; Joseph Duffey; Thomas J. Dodd; Alphonsus J. Donahue; John Lupton; Wallace C. Barnes; and Emilio Q. Daddario;

Copies of any and all information so transmitted.

An uncensored copy of the Oct. 6, 1969, letter from J. Edgar Hoover to John D. Ehrlichman by which Mr. Hoover transmits "memoranda" on several individuals to Mr. Ehrlichman.

A copy of the original request letter from Mr. Ehrlichman to Mr. Hoover for that data.

Copies of all data so transmitted by the Oct. 6, 1969, letter from Mr. Hoover to Mr. Ehrlichman.

A copy of the receipt signed by the recipient at the White House of the Oct. 6, 1969, letter.

App. at 5.

By letter dated July 23, 1976, Kelley notified Petitioner that the Bureau would not search its files to determine whether it had the requested information until Petitioner obtained notarized authorization for the disclosure of the information from the subjects of the request. App. at 7. Kelley indicated that, without such authorization, the information would be "exempt from disclosure pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552(b)(6), which exempts information the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and/or (b)(7)(C), which exempts information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." App. at 7. 8

After receiving Kelley's response, Petitioner assumed that his initial "request was too specific and that in its specificity it violated the privacy of others." App. at 12-13. Petitioner thereafter filed a new request on August 3, 1976, seeking the following documents:

1. All written requests and written records of oral or telephone requests from the White House or any person employed by the White House to the FBI for information about any person who was in 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, or 1974 the holder of a federal elective office or a candidate for federal elective office.

2. All written replies and records of oral or telephonic replies from the FBI to the White House in response to requests described in paragraph one.

3. Any index or indices to requests or replies described in paragraphs one and two.

App. at 9. On August 20, 1976, Kelley denied Abramson's second request for failure to "reasonably describe the records sought" as required by 28 C.F.R. § 16.3(b) (1979). 9

After unsuccessfully appealing both denials within the agency, Abramson filed suit, on December 20, 1977, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to enjoin the FBI from withholding the records and to make the records immediately available to him. The FBI responded to Abramson's suit by denying all liability under the FOIA, as it had done throughout the administrative appeals. During the pendency of this action, the FBI reprocessed Abramson's requests and provided him with eighty-four pages of documents some intact, and some with deletions. The Government claimed that the deleted material was protected from disclosure under Exemptions (b)(1), (b) (7)(C) and (b)(7)(D). 10

On the Government's motion for dismissal or, alternatively, summary judgment, the District Court issued an order on January 3, 1979, requiring the Government to allow Petitioner to modify his second request to more reasonably describe the documents sought, and requiring the Government to re-evaluate the nondisclosed material claimed exempted under (b)(1) in light of Executive Order 12065, 43 Fed.Reg. 28,949 (1978). 11 App. at 18, 20. In addition, the District Court denied the Government's motion with respect to Exemptions (7)(C) and (7)(D), pending a showing that the documents for which the exemptions were claimed were compiled for law enforcement and not political purposes. App. at 18-19. The District Court noted that the only evidence before it to indicate that the records were compiled for law enforcement purposes was the Government's assertion that The documents which are at issue in this proceeding were compiled by the FBI pursuant to requests by the White House and were transmitted by the Bureau to a senior White House official, John D. Ehrlichman. Thus, the records plaintiff seeks were compiled pursuant to the investigative authority of the FBI.

App. at 18.

In its January 3, 1979 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the District Court cited Weisberg v. United States Department of Justice, 489 F.2d 1195, 1202 (D.C.Cir.1973) (en banc), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 993, 94 S.Ct. 2405, 40 L.Ed.2d 772 (1974), which held that, notwithstanding the Attorney General's designation of certain investigatory files as having been compiled for law enforcement purposes, "his ipse dixit does not finalize the matter, for there remains the judicial function of determining whether that classification be proper." App. at 19. The District Court Memorandum Opinion also noted that:

The Court does not full understand the government's logic that because the records were compiled at the White House's request, they are "thus" investigatory. Moreover, this contention does not even address the issue whether the records were compiled for "law enforcement" rather than political purposes.

App. at 19. The District Court thus found the bald assertion of exemption by the FBI to be an insufficient basis from which to determine the proper classification of the documents. Id.

On September 6, 1979, the FBI submitted an affidavit to the District Court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • King v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 84-5098
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 28 Septiembre 1987
    ...at 41, 749 F.2d at 63; Pratt v. Webster, supra note 29, 218 U.S.App.D.C. at 30, 673 F.2d at 421 (citing Abramson v. FBI, 212 U.S.App.D.C. 58, 63, 658 F.2d 806, 811 (1980), rev'd on other grounds, 456 U.S. 615, 102 S.Ct. 2054, 72 L.Ed.2d 376 (1986)).146 Shaw v. FBI, supra note 137, 242 U.S.A......
  • Pratt v. Webster
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 22 Enero 1982
    ...... case is a logical sequel to the decision of this Circuit a little more than a year ago in Abramson v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 212 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 658 F.2d 806 (D.C.Cir.1980), cert. ..., that documents in the possession of the Federal Bureau [673 F.2d 410] of Investigation ("FBI") must satisfy the threshold language of Exemption 7 of the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") 1 ......
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Abramson
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 24 Mayo 1982
    ...exclusion and did not invite a judicial weighing of the benefits and evils of disclosure on a case-by-case basis. P. 631 212 U.S.App.D.C. 58, 658 F.2d 806, reversed and Kenneth S. Geller, Washington, D. C., for petitioners. Sharon T. Nelson, Washington, D. C., for respondent. Justice WHITE ......
  • Lardner v. Department of Justice, Civil Action No. 08-1398 (CKK).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 31 Julio 2009
    ...records, Plaintiff is both factually and legally incorrect. 11. The Court notes that Plaintiff cites extensively to Abramson v. FBI, 658 F.2d 806, 813 (D.C.Cir.1980) for the proposition that—even if the information sought in this case was taken from the applicant's individual clemency files......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT