Citizens United v. U.S. Dep't of State
| Decision Date | 19 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 18-1862 |
| Citation | 460 F.Supp.3d 12 |
| Parties | CITIZENS UNITED, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Jeremiah Lee Morgan, William J. Olson, P.C., Vienna, VA, for Plaintiff.
Johnny Hillary Walker, III, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
In June 2018, Plaintiff Citizens United submitted a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, request to the State Department ("the Department"), seeking the disclosure of certain records relating to an October 2016 meeting between officials at the Department and Christopher Steele. Dkt. 1-2 at 2. Although the Department confirmed receipt of the FOIA request, Dkt. 1-3 at 2, it did not provide a substantive response within the statutorily allotted time, and Citizens United brought suit, Dkt. 1. After this litigation commenced, the Department "located nine responsive documents, of which four were released in full, four were released in part," and one was withheld in full. Dkt. 13-5 at 13 (Stein. Decl. ¶ 50). Unsatisfied with those withholdings and the Department's proffered justifications, Citizens United now moves for summary judgment to "challenge[ ] the exemptions relied" upon by the Department. Dkt. 11-1 at 5. The Department cross-moves, arguing that its "targeted redactions fall squarely within" the claimed exemptions. Dkt. 13-1 at 7. For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that the Department has properly withheld or redacted most of the records but that it has failed to offer sufficient explanations for redactions made to two records. The Court, accordingly, will DENY Citizens United's motion for summary judgment, will GRANT in part and DENY in part the Department's motion for summary judgment, and will afford the Department the opportunity to offer a more complete explanation for the redactions made to the two records.
In June 2018, after Citizens United saw an article published in The Weekly Standard asserting that Christopher Steele "visited the State Department [and] brief[ed] officials" in October 2016, Citizens United submitted an online FOIA request to the Department seeking "copies of all records relating to the ... briefing ... as described in the" article, including:
Records should include, but not be limited to, the following: a) Participant lists[,] b) Participant notes[,] c) Briefing scheduling requests[,] d) Minutes[,] e) Transcripts[,] f) Briefing materials[,] g) Briefing location[,] h) After-action reports[,] [and] i) Audio or visual recordings[.]
Dkt. 1-2 at 2 (internal quotations omitted). The FOIA request specified a date range of September 1, 2016 through November 30, 2016. Id. The State Department confirmed receipt of that request that same day, Dkt. 1-3, but did not provide a substantive response, and, on August 8, 2018, Citizens United brought this action to compel the Department to respond to the request, Dkt. 1. After Citizens United filed suit, the Department located nine responsive records, released eight of them in full or in part, and withheld in full one responsive document. Dkt. 13-5 at 13 (Stein Decl. ¶ 50). With respect to some of the records, the Department consulted with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") regarding possible withholdings. See Dkt. 13-4 at 3 (Seidel Decl. ¶ 6). The parties now cross-move for summary judgment. Dkt. 11; Dkt. 13. The only disputes remaining between the parties relate to the propriety of the Department's redactions and withholdings for five documents (referred to by the parties as Documents 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9) and the segregability of any non-exempt information.
The Freedom of Information Act is premised on the notion that "an informed citizenry" is "vital to the functioning of a democratic society [and] needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed." NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co. , 437 U.S. 214, 242, 98 S.Ct. 2311, 57 L.Ed.2d 159 (1978). The Act embodies a "general philosophy of full agency disclosure." U.S. Dep't of Defense v. FLRA , 510 U.S. 487, 494, 114 S.Ct. 1006, 127 L.Ed.2d 325 (1994) (quoting Dep't of Air Force v. Rose , 425 U.S. 352, 360, 96 S.Ct. 1592, 48 L.Ed.2d 11 (1976) ). The FOIA, accordingly, requires that agencies disclose records responsive to a request unless those records fall within one of nine exclusive statutory exemptions. See Milner v. Dep't of Navy , 562 U.S. 562, 565, 131 S.Ct. 1259, 179 L.Ed.2d 268 (2011).
"[T]he vast majority of FOIA cases can be resolved on summary judgment." Brayton v. Office of U.S. Trade Rep. , 641 F.3d 521, 527 (D.C. Cir. 2011). A court must grant summary judgment if the moving party shows "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In a FOIA action, the agency may meet its burden by submitting declarations that are "relatively detailed and non-conclusory," SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC , 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (internal quotation and citation omitted), and an index of the information withheld, see Vaughn v. Rosen , 484 F.2d 820, 827–28 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Summary judgment is warranted on the basis of agency declarations when the declarations "describe the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail, demonstrate that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption, and are not controverted by either contrary evidence in the record nor by evidence of agency bad faith." Larson v. Dep't of State , 565 F.3d 857, 862 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Miller v. Casey , 730 F.2d 773, 776 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ).
Although the Department has invoked several exemptions to justify its withholdings, it is sufficient if it properly invoked one exemption for each withholding. See Cause of Action Inst. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 330 F. Supp. 3d 336, 351–52 (D.D.C. 2018) (). Applying that principle here, and for the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that the Department permissibly withheld or redacted Documents 3, 6, and 7, but that it has yet to offer a sufficiently detailed explanation of its redactions to Documents 4 and 9.
The parties’ most substantial dispute concerns the Department's decision to withhold Document 7 in its entirety pursuant to Exemptions 3 and 7(E). See Dkt. 13-5 at 12–13 (Stein Decl. ¶ 47); Dkt. 15 at 14–15. Because the Court concludes that the Department lawfully withheld Document 7 under Exemption 3, its analysis begins and ends there.
Exemption 3 permits an agency to withhold information "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute," if such statute either "requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue" or "establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3). "Exemption 3 differs from other FOIA exemptions in that its applicability depends less on the detailed factual contents of specific documents; the sole issue for decision is the existence of a relevant statute and the inclusion of withheld material within the statute's coverage." DiBacco v. U.S. Army , 795 F.3d 178, 197 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting Morley v. CIA , 508 F.3d 1108, 1126 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ).
Here, the Department invokes the National Security Act of 1947, § 102A(i), as amended by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, 50 U.S.C. § 3024(i)(1) (collectively, the "National Security Act"), on behalf of the FBI. See Dkt. 13-4 at 14 (Seidel Decl. ¶ 32). The National Security Act requires the Director of National Intelligence ("DNI") to protect "intelligence sources and methods" from "unauthorized disclosure," 50 U.S.C. § 3024(i)(1), and authorizes the DNI to promulgate guidelines for the intelligence community regarding "[a]ccess to and dissemination of intelligence, both in final form and in the form when initially gathered," id. § 3024(i)(2)(B). Consistent with his duties and powers, the DNI promulgated Intelligence Community Directive 700, which directs elements of the intelligence community to "[p]rotect[ ] national intelligence and intelligence sources, methods, and activities from unauthorized disclosure[.]" Intelligence Community Directive (ICD)700, at 1 (June 7, 2012), available at https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICD/ICD_700.pdf. The FBI is bound by that directive, and it is pursuant to this obligations that the FBI "determined that ... [it is] prohibited from disclosing" Document 7. Dkt. 13-4 at 15 (Stein Decl. ¶¶ 33–35); see also DiBacco , 795 F.3d at 197–200 ().
Citizens United does not dispute that the National Security Act falls within Exemption 3—nor could it. The D.C. Circuit has repeatedly held that the National Security Act "is a valid Exemption 3 statute." DiBacco , 795 F.3d at 183 ; see also Krikorian v. Dep't of State , 984 F.2d 461, 465 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Nor does Citizens United dispute that the National Security Act gives the DNI, and by delegation, other elements of the intelligence community, see DiBacco , 795 F.3d at 197–198, "wide-ranging authority to protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure," CIA v. Sims , 471 U.S. 159, 177, 105 S.Ct. 1881, 85 L.Ed.2d 173 (1985) (internal quotations omitted). Instead, it disputes only that Document 7 falls within the National Security Act's coverage. See Dkt. 15 at 15–17. The relevant question, therefore, is whether the release of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Citizens United v. U.S. Dep't of State
...records related to an October 2016 meeting between Department officials and Christopher Steele. Citizens United v. Dep't of State, 460 F. Supp. 3d 12, 15 (D.D.C. 2020) ("Citizens United I"). The Department has released four documents in full, released four documents with redactions, and wit......