Gardels v. Central Intelligence Agency, Civ. A. No. 78-330.
Decision Date | 04 January 1980 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 78-330. |
Citation | 484 F. Supp. 368 |
Parties | Nathan GARDELS, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Mark H. Lynch, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.
Daniel J. Metcalfe, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant.
This matter is before the Court on defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff Nathan Gardels brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as amended, for release of any documents relating to CIA contacts with the University of California. The CIA has refused to either deny or confirm the existence of documents concerning covert CIA activity at the eleven campuses and branches of that educational system, alleging that release of such information would result in the unauthorized disclosure of intelligence sources and methods and that such disclosure is prohibited by exemption 3 of the FOIA. Upon consideration of the parties' submissions in support of their respective positions and the entire record herein, the Court concludes that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the defendant CIA is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Nathan Gardels wrote a letter on May 26, 1976, seeking release from the CIA of "all past and present contractual arrangements or agreements and personal relationships between the CIA and the University of California." The CIA by letter of August 3, 1976, indicated that to process his request would require over 400 man-hours and cost over three thousand dollars. Gardels' counsel narrowed the request on December 15, 1976, to include only documents retrievable from five named CIA divisions1 and those collected by the CIA for use by either the Select Senate Committee to Study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities or the House Select Committee on Intelligence.
In response, the CIA gave documents to Gardels on four occasions. On July 11, 1977, the CIA released three documents without deletions and 155 documents with deletions. On November 2, 1977, the CIA released 18 documents without deletions, 21 documents with deletions, and a list of 12 other documents withheld in their entirety. The letter of November 2 also informed Gardels that the CIA would not release "(a)ny additional records, if they exist, which would be responsive to your request and which reveal any covert CIA connection with or interest in matters relating to those set forth in your request, and, indeed, any data that might reveal the existence of any such additional records." On September 21, 1977, and May 30, 1978, the CIA released additional documents to Gardels pursuant to his FOIA request, but they are not at issue in this lawsuit.
The CIA did not respond to Gardels' administrative appeals. Gardels filed a complaint in this Court on February 28, 1978, to compel the CIA to confirm or deny the existence of all documents responsive to his request and to obtain access to all documents withheld in whole or in part.
50 U.S.C. § 403g. These statutes are within the scope of exemption 3 of the Freedom of Information Act. Goland v. Central Intelligence Agency, 197 U.S.App.D.C. 25, 607 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
The issue in this case is whether the disclosure of the requested information lies within the scope of Sections 403(d)(3) and 403g. The CIA asserts that confirming or denying the existence of covert CIA contacts at a particular university or college would lead to efforts to expose and terminate confidential CIA intelligence sources and methods. It relies primarily on the affidavits of John F. Blake, Chairman of the Information Review Committee and Deputy Director for Administration of the CIA, and of Michel Oksenberg, staff member of the National Security Council and professor of political science at the University of Michigan, on leave.
Blake Affidavit at ¶ 9 and ¶ 12. Professor Oksenberg declares that "even the disclosure of the fact that such associations (with the CIA) exist at a particular university would lead ultimately to strong pressure to identify the academics involved." Oksenberg Affidavit at ¶ 7.2 Professor Richard Abrams' assertion in his affidavit for the plaintiff that disclosure "would not inevitably result in the identification of the source" does not refute the CIA's submissions, because the question is not one of inevitability or certainty, but whether it is undisputed that to confirm or deny can reasonably be expected to lead to exposure. See Phillipi v. Central Intelligence Agency, 178 U.S.App.D.C. 243, 249 n.14, 546 F.2d 1009 at 1015, n.14 (D.C. Cir. 1976); National Commission on Law Enforcement and Social Justice v. Central Intelligence Agency, 576 F.2d 1373, 1377 (9th Cir. 1978).
Section 552(a)(4)(B) of the FOIA mandates de novo review of agency...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Moor-Law, Inc.
... ... Civ. A. No. 77-325 ... United States District ... ...
-
Gardels v. C. I. A.
...summary judgment which was granted by the court below on the ground that the CIA's position accorded with Exemption 3 of the FOIA. 484 F.Supp. 368 (1980). On appeal by Gardels, this court reversed (without in any way reaching the merits), solely because the Agency had filed an inadequate St......
-
Gardels v. Central Intelligence Agency, 80-1253
...deposed Blake, Oksenberg, and Wortman. On January 4, 1980 the District Court granted the CIA's motion for summary judgment. Gardels v. CIA, 484 F.Supp. 368 (1980). -8090, Order of March 26, 1979. On October 31, 1979 the District Court vacated its in camera inspection order. This court then ......
-
Gardels v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGCY.
...of the documents at issue can reasonably be expected to result in the disclosure of intelligence sources and methods." Gardels v. CIA, 484 F.Supp. 368, 371 (D.C.D.C.1980). On October 30, 1980, the United States Court of Appeals, expressing no view on the merits, reversed and remanded based ......