Ground Saucer Watch, Inc. v. C.I.A., No. 80-1705

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
• Writing for the Court: Before WRIGHT; PER CURIAM
• Citation: 692 F.2d 770,224 U.S.App.D.C. 1
• Parties: GROUND SAUCER WATCH, INC., Appellant, Harvey Brody v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY et al.
• Docket Number: No. 80-1705
• Decision Date: 17 August 1981

Page 770

692 F.2d 770 224 U.S.App.D.C. 1 GROUND SAUCER WATCH, INC., Appellant,
Harvey Brody
v.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY et al. No. 80-1705. United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit. Aug. 17, 1981.

Before WRIGHT, Circuit Judge, VAN DUSEN, ^* Senior Circuit Judge, and GINSBURG, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT

This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Page 771

and was argued by counsel. For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum,

It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this court that the judgment of the District Court appealed from in this cause is hereby affirmed.

This case comes before us on appeal from a District Court decision to grant appellees' motion for summary judgment. It presents a single troublesome issue. Following a search of its files that resulted in release of over 900 pages of documents, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) filed affidavits indicating that it had conducted a thorough search for materials defined by appellant's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. ¹ Under the applicable legal standard, agency affidavits will ordinarily suffice to establish the adequacy of an FOIA search effort if they are " 'relatively detailed' and nonconclusory and * * * submitted in good faith." Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339, 352 (D.C.Cir.1978) (footnote omitted), quoted in Founding Church of Scientology v. National Security Agency, 610 F.2d 824, 836 (D.C.Cir.1979). The District Court found, and appellant cannot seriously dispute, that the Agency affidavits here in issue were relatively detailed and nonconclusory. Ground Saucer Watch does, however, contest the conclusion that it failed to raise a substantial and material question about the CIA's good faith. Its argument on this point defines the issue before us: Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to appellant, can it be said that the CIA affidavits left no substantial and material fact to be determined and that appellees were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law? ²

As this court held in Founding Church of Scientology v. National Security Agency, supra, 610 F.2d at 834, "[T]he competence of any records-search is a matter dependent upon the circumstances of the case * * *." Agency affidavits enjoy a presumption of good faith, which will withstand purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other documents. See, e.g., Goland v. CIA, supra, 607 F.2d at 355. In order to prevail on this appeal, therefore, appellant must point to evidence sufficient to put the Agency's good faith into doubt. Although Ground Saucer Watch advances numerous arguments, in none do we find a sufficient link between asserted fact and argued inference to raise a serious and material question requiring trial on the merits.

Appellant relies, first, on the search instructions that the CIA issued to the employees actually canvassing its files. Those instructions called for a search of only those files identified in a stipulation entered by the parties on August 23, 1978 and approved by the District Court on September 15, 1978 ³: they stated that the stipulation "so changes the [appellant's] original requests, original complaint and revised complaint that the latter have, in effect, become immaterial to the search you will conduct * * *." ⁴ According to appellant, the CIA showed its bad faith by not directing a...