Shapiro v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, Case No. 1:14–CV–00019 (CRC)

CourtUnited States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
Citation247 F.Supp.3d 53
Decision Date31 March 2017
Docket NumberCase No. 1:14–CV–00019 (CRC)
Parties Ryan Noah SHAPIRO, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et. al., Defendants.

247 F.Supp.3d 53

Ryan Noah SHAPIRO, Plaintiff,
al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:14–CV–00019 (CRC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed March 31, 2017

247 F.Supp.3d 59

Jeffrey Louis Light, Law Offices of Jeffrey Light, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

William Mark Nebeker, Robin Michelle Meriweather, Timothy E. Broomhead, U.S. Attorney's Office Washington, DC, for Defendants.


CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER, United States District Judge

Doctoral student Ryan Shapiro wants to know if the United States government was complicit in Nelson Mandela's arrest and imprisonment by South Africa's apartheid-era regime. To that end, Shapiro filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Department of Defense's Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation seeking virtually every document in their sprawling files that mentions or references Mandela. After refusing to narrow his request in any meaningful way, Shapiro has filed suit challenging each agency's response. The Court has previously ruled on motions filed by the CIA and NSA, and they, along with the DIA, continue to review and release responsive records. Now before the Court is a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment filed by the FBI, and a cross-motion for summary judgment filed by Shapiro.

Shapiro raises a laundry list of objections to the FBI's search and non-disclosure of responsive material under a variety of FOIA exemptions. For the reasons explained below, the Court will uphold the large majority of the challenged withholdings, but will reserve judgment in part and deny judgment in part to each side with respect to several withholdings whose appropriateness remains in dispute.

I. Background

Ryan Shapiro describes himself as a student of "the political functioning of national security and the policing of dissent." Pl.'s First Am. Compl. ("Compl.") ¶ 2. A serial FOIA requester, Shapiro submitted FOIA requests to the CIA, NSA, DIA, and FBI in December 2013, soon after Nelson Mandela's death. Id. at ¶ 21. In the FBI

247 F.Supp.3d 60

request, he sought "disclosure of any and all records that were prepared, received, transmitted, collected and/or maintained by the FBI, the Terrorist Screening Center, the National Joint Terrorism Task Force, or any Joint Terrorism Task Force relating or referring to deceased individual Rolihlahla Mandela, (aka Nelson Mandela, aka Madiba, aka Tata)." Compl., Ex. 2 ("FOIA Request") at 1. Of particular interest to Shapiro were the 27 years Mandela spent in prison at the hands of South Africa's apartheid government and the surrounding rumors that the CIA was somehow involved in the arrest that led to his incarceration. Id. at 2. Shapiro requested that the FBI search "all electronic and paper/manual indices, filing systems, and locations," including "all of its directorates" and at least thirty enumerated "filing systems, indices, and locations" for responsive records. Id. at 4–5. The request also encompassed emails and publicly available records. Id. at 2, 6. The FBI granted Shapiro's request for expedited processing on December 19, 2013. Compl. ¶ 35.

The FBI—including its headquarters, field offices, and attaché offices abroad—uses the aptly named Central Records System to house the records it compiles and maintains in the "course of fulfilling its integrated ... functions as a law enforcement, counterterrorism, and intelligence agency [.]" Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. ("MSJ"), Decl. of David M. Hardy ("First Hardy Decl.") ¶ 19. Many of the records relevant here are contained in the FBI's case files. When a case file is opened, it is assigned a Universal Case File Number ("UCFN"), comprised of three components: the Central Record System's file classification number, an abbreviation for the office that created it, and the assigned individual case file number for that subject matter. Id. at ¶ 20. The FBI also maintains a Universal Index that allows records to be quickly retrieved via index searching. Id. at ¶ 24. The FBI conducted index searches to comb through multiple case-management systems for responsive records. Id. at ¶¶ 30–34. Since May 2014, the FBI has processed 1,519 responsive pages and made 18 rolling releases to Shapiro. Def.'s Statement of Material Facts ("SMF") ¶ 2. These pages were located in 11 "main" files (i.e., files names with corresponding to the requested subject matter) and 177 "cross-references" (i.e., files concerning other, unrelated subjects but that contain records referencing the requested subject matter). Id. at ¶¶ 6, 8. Of the pages processed, the FBI released 1,244, in full or in part, and withheld 272 pages in full. Id. The FBI relied on the following FOIA exemptions when redacting information or withholding pages from release: 1, classified information; 3, information protected by another statute; 5, privileged information; 6 and 7(C), personal privacy; 7(A), pending law enforcement proceedings; 7(D), confidential source information; 7(E), law enforcement investigative techniques and procedures; and 7(F), personal safety of individuals involved in law enforcement activities.1 See First Hardy Decl. ¶ 38. The application of these exemptions will be discussed in greater detail below. With production complete as of summer 2016, the FBI now moves to dismiss Shapiro's complaint, and alternatively, for summary

247 F.Supp.3d 61

judgment. It maintains that its search was adequate and that it has sufficiently justified its withholdings under the relevant FOIA exemptions. Shapiro also moves for summary judgment, challenging the FBI's withholdings and its responsiveness determinations. Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Cross–Mot. Summ. J. ("Cross–MSJ") 1.

II. Legal Standard

"FOIA cases typically and appropriately are decided on motions for summary judgment." Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Border Patrol , 623 F.Supp.2d 83, 87 (D.D.C. 2009). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court assumes the truth of the non-movant's evidence and draws all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). "It is well settled in Freedom of Information Act cases as in any others that summary judgment may be granted only if the moving party proves that no substantial and material facts are in dispute and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp. , 228 F.Supp.3d 28, 37, 2017 WL 74690, at *4 (D.D.C. Jan. 6, 2017) (internal quotation omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

Congress created FOIA "to pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny." ACLU v. DOJ , 655 F.3d 1, 5 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting U.S. Dep't o f the A ir For ce v. Rose , 425 U.S. 352, 361, 96 S.Ct. 1592, 48 L.Ed.2d 11 (1976) ). Despite this broad mandate, FOIA contains a set of exceptions to the general obligation to provide government records to the public. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). These exemptions are in place "to balance the public's interest in governmental transparency against the ‘legitimate governmental and private interests [that] could be harmed by release of certain types of information.’ " United Techs. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Defense , 601 F.3d 557, 559 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting Critical Mass Energy Project v. Nuclear Reg. Comm'n , 975 F.2d 871, 872 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (en banc)). FOIA "mandates a strong presumption in favor of disclosure," and its "statutory exemptions, which are exclusive, are to be ‘narrowly construed.’ " Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Norton , 309 F.3d 26, 32 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (quoting Department of Air Force v. Rose , 425 U.S. 352, 361, 96 S.Ct. 1592, 48 L.Ed.2d 11 (1976) ).

The government therefore bears the burden to establish that the claimed FOIA exemptions apply to each document for which they are invoked. ACLU v. U.S. Dep't of Defense , 628 F.3d 612, 619 (D.C. Cir. 2011). It may satisfy this burden through declarations that describe the justifications for its withholdings in "specific detail, demonstrat[ing] that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption[.]" Id. But agency affidavits will not warrant summary judgment if the plaintiff puts forth contrary evidence or demonstrates the agency's bad faith. Id.

III. Discussion

The Court will address Shapiro's objections to the FBI's claimed exemptions in sequential order, and will then turn to his responsiveness challenge.

A. Exemptions 1 and 3 Generally

FOIA Exemption 1 protects classified information. Records are protected if "specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and ... [if they are] properly classified pursuant to such Executive order." 5 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1). Exemption 3 protects records that are exempted from disclosure by statute if that statute:

247 F.Supp.3d 62

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Shapiro v. Dep't of Justice
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • July 2, 2020
    ...against the CIA. Id. at 34 (citing Shapiro v. United States Dep't of Justice, 239 F. Supp. 3d 100 (D.D.C. 2017) and Shapiro v. CIA, 247 F. Supp. 3d 53 (D.D.C. 2017)). In both cases, summary judgment was withheld with respect to certain file numbers because the records presented were insuffi......
  • Brady Ctr. to Prevent Gun Violence v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Civil Action No. 17-2130 (RDM)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • September 28, 2019
    ...discussion of how to distinguish between a single record with multiple parts and separate records is found in Shapiro v. CIA , 247 F. Supp. 3d 53, 74–75 (D.D.C. 2017). In Shapiro , the court upheld the FBI's determination that several large documents covering multiple subjects—such as manua......
  • Shapiro v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • December 11, 2020
    ...from Chief Judge Howell in the litigation over Shapiro's parent FOIA requests. Distinguishing both Shapiro IV and Shapiro v. CIA , 247 F. Supp. 3d 53, 73 (D.D.C. 2017), which had adopted the same reasoning applied here, Chief Judge Howell "determined that the FBI has adequately described th......
  • Gellman v. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • March 20, 2020
    ...decides, and it is then the court's job to determine if the agency's explanation for its decision is reasonable. See Shapiro v. CIA, 247 F. Supp. 3d 53, 74-75 (D.D.C. 2017) (Cooper, J.) ("The burden will first rest with the agency to justify its actions when singling out a responsive record......
  • 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