Yeager v. Drug Enforcement Admin.
| Decision Date | 14 May 1982 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 79-2275,80-2465,s. 79-2275 |
| Parties | , 8 Media L. Rep. 1959 Matthew G. YEAGER, Appellant, v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C.Civil No. 76-0973).
William V. DePaulo, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Marc Johnston, Atty., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., with whom Stuart E. Schiffer, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles F. C. Ruff, U. S. Atty., Washington, D.C., at the time the brief was filed, and Leonard Schaitman, Atty., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellees. Kenneth M. Raisler and Lynne K. Zusman, Asst. U. S. Attys., Washington, D.C., also entered appearances for appellees.
Before ROBINSON, Chief Judge, and TAMM and GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge TAMM.
This case presents several novel and important questions concerning the interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA or the Act), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1976), as it applies to agency records stored in computers. The central claim is that the FOIA requires the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or the Agency) to use so-called "disclosure-avoidance techniques" in fulfilling its duty to release reasonably segregable nonexempt portions of records. Because we find that the FOIA imposes no agency duty to employ such computer techniques and appellant concedes that the records in question are otherwise exempt, we affirm the district court.
In 1976 appellant Matthew G. Yeager filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to compel the DEA 1 to release four complete record systems and the technical records relating to each system. 2 The Agency denied that Yeager was entitled to any portion of the records requested. Thereafter, Yeager moved the court to require the DEA to file a Vaughn index, 3 and the Agency, arguing primarily that the records had not been "reasonably described" within the meaning of subsection (a)(3), 4 moved for summary judgment.
On May 1, 1979, the district court granted both motions in part. Memorandum Order, Yeager v. DEA, Civ. No. 76-0973 (hereinafter Memorandum Order ); Appendix (App.) at 39. The court rejected the DEA's argument that the requested records had not been "reasonably described," id. at 6; App. at 44, but found that three of the requested record systems, KISS, PATHFINDER, and NIMROD, were exempt in their entireties under exemptions 7(A), (C), (D), and (E) of the FOIA. 5 Id. at 6-8; App. at 44-46. The district court found that the fourth record system, the Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Information System (NADDIS), contained both exempt and arguably nonexempt data. The court therefore granted Yeager's motion for a Vaughn index as to NADDIS. Id. at 8; App. at 46.
In addition, the court addressed Yeager's request for the technical records associated with each system. These records included the codebook and computer format necessary for Yeager to access data if the records were released to him on magnetic tape. 6 The DEA claimed that such records fell within the ambit of exemption 2 because they related solely to the internal procedures of the Agency. 7 The district court rejected this position as an unduly narrow reading of the exemption. Id. at 8-9; App. at 46-47. If the substantive records are disclosed on magnetic tape, the court reasoned, the technical documents necessary to "read" the released information are more than mere internal agency material. Id. at 9; App. at 47.
In response to the court's order, the DEA filed its Vaughn material consisting of one public affidavit, two in camera affidavits, and an in camera memorandum study. 8 The DEA agreed to release "those (information categories) which are not personal, occupational and/or geographical in nature." Affidavit of John G. Evans at P 5, Yeager v. DEA, No. 76-0973, (D.D.C. October 30, 1980). Such information includes sex, race, and date of birth. The DEA also offered to provide "yes or no" entries for the following categories: Prior Criminal Record; Prior Drug Arrest; Illegal Alien; Drug Abuser and Prior Drug Convictions. Id. Release of all other categories, DEA claimed, "will jeopardize some ongoing investigations, could tend to identify suspects, would identify certain persons with unique occupations, and could invade the privacy of third persons." Id. at P 13.
Yeager filed a motion requesting that his counsel be allowed access to the in camera documents. Several months later, Yeager moved in the district court for the appointment of a special master to assist the court in understanding the technical aspects of the case. The DEA renewed its motion for summary judgment as to the NADDIS system. In opposing summary judgment, Yeager relied primarily on the argument that the segregation duty imposed by the FOIA requires an agency to use all available means to facilitate the disclosure of information. Thus, Yeager reasoned, the DEA was required to use computer "disclosure-avoidance" techniques in fulfilling his request. 9
On October 30, 1980, the district court denied both of Yeager's motions and granted summary judgment for the DEA. Memorandum Order, Yeager v. DEA, Civ. No. 76-0973 (D.D.C. October 30, 1980) (hereinafter Final Order ); App. at 52. The court found that disclosure of the contested information elements, or combinations of those elements, "could reasonably be expected to lead to the identification of subjects in the NADDIS system." Id. at 6; App. at 57. Yeager's argument that the DEA has a duty to use its computer capabilities to provide the information in a form that would make the material nonexempt was rejected as "beyond the statutory directive." Id. at 8; App. at 59. In effect, the district court held that computer-stored agency records need be treated no differently than records maintained in manual filing systems. Yeager now appeals both district court orders. 10
On appeal, Yeager renews his argument that the duty to segregate nonexempt material requires the DEA to use its computer capabilities to employ "disclosure-avoidance" techniques. The failure of the DEA to submit evidence on the application of such techniques to the NADDIS records and the failure of the district court to obtain the opinion of an independent expert on the feasibility of these techniques, Yeager contends, mandate reversal of the summary judgment that the withheld NADDIS records are exempt.
Yeager also challenges the district court's determination that "some" risk of disclosure of identities justifies the exemption. Yeager further argues that the agency's burden in deleting exempt material is irrelevant to a determination that material is not "reasonably segregable." Yeager also alleges that the DEA's Vaughn submission did not merit in camera treatment and that his counsel was improperly denied access to these materials. Finally, Yeager argues that summary judgment on the exempt status of the PATHFINDER, NIMROD, and KISS systems was erroneous.
Although the Agency ultimately prevailed in the district court, several issues raised there were decided adversely to the DEA. The Agency now wishes this court to address the contention that the request for four entire systems of records is overbroad, and the records are thus not "reasonably described" as required by the Act. The DEA also argues that the requested technical records related to the computer systems are exempt as internal agency records. In addition, the DEA contends for the first time on appeal that Yeager is not entitled to any records in the form of magnetic tape. We address each of these contentions in turn.
The purposes and policies underlying the FOIA are well known and need not be reiterated here except to say that the Act imposes a duty upon agencies to disclose their records. The limited exemptions provided in the Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (1976), are to be "construed narrowly, in such a way as to provide the maximum access consonant with the overall purpose of the Act." Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 823 (D.C.Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977, 94 S.Ct. 1564, 39 L.Ed.2d 873 (1974). The burden of establishing that a particular record, or a portion thereof, falls within one of the enumerated exemptions lies with the agency. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). This burden requires the agency to provide more than conclusory allegations of possible harm. Vaughn, 484 F.2d at 825-26; Mead Data Central, Inc. v. Department of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 258 (D.C.Cir.1977). The agency must provide "a relatively detailed justification, specifically identifying the reasons why a particular exemption is relevant and correlating those claims with the particular part of the withheld document to which they apply." Mead Data Central, 566 F.2d at 251.
In 1974 Congress amended the FOIA by adding, inter alia, a provision explicitly requiring that when a document contains both exempt and nonexempt material, the nonexempt material must be disclosed if "reasonably segregable." 11 The segregation requirement, in conjunction with Vaughn indexing and the provision of the Act that allows in camera review of the requested documents, 12 forecloses the possibility that an agency's sweeping claim of blanket exemption for any record or group of records will escape intensive court scrutiny.
The primary question presented in this case concerns the extent to which an agency is required to employ its computer capabilities in fulfilling its duty to segregate and release nonexempt material. It cannot be gainsaid that computers have become an integral part of the functioning of our society. Both private and government entities use the storage, processing, and retrieval capabilities of computers to improve...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dillon v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
..."[t]he linchpin inquiry is whether the agency is able to determine ‘precisely what records are being requested.’ " Yeager v. DEA , 678 F.2d 315, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (quoting S. Rep. No. 93-854, at 10 (1974)). Although "a FOIA requester has an obligation to ‘reasonably describe[ ]’ the reco......
-
Tax Analysts v. I.R.S.
...records are being requested.' " Kowalczyk v. Department of Justice, 73 F.3d 386, 388 (D.C.Cir.1996) (quoting Yeager v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 678 F.2d 315, 326 (D.C.Cir.1982)). The IRS has had no trouble identifying the FSAs Tax Analysts wanted. It told Tax Analysts precisely how many suc......
-
Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County v. County of Spokane
...exist in order to satisfy a FOIA request. Miller v. U.S. Dep't of State, 779 F.2d 1378, 1385 (8th Cir.1985); Yeager v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 678 F.2d 315, 321 (D.C.Cir.1982). Further, the filing system that an agency uses is generally designed to serve the agency's internal needs, and al......
-
McDonnell v. U.S.
...is not required to create records in order to respond to FOIA requests. Sears, 421 U.S. at 162, 95 S.Ct. at 1522; Yeager v. DEA, 678 F.2d 315, 321-23 (D.C.Cir.1982); Krohn v. Department of Justice, 628 F.2d 195, 197-98 (D.C.Cir.1980). Nevertheless, we are not persuaded that translation of e......
-
CHAPTER 4 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATIONS AND DEVELOPING A RECORD FOR THE APPEAL
...the exemption in subsection (b) under which the deletion was made. [35] See infra note 36-38. [36] 36. Yeager v. Drug Enforcement Admin. 678 F.2d 315, 3221 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (citations omitted)(finding electronic records are covered under FOIA) see Long v. IRS, 596 F.2d 362, 364-65 (9 Cir. 1......
-
THE MEANING OF CREATION: ELECTRONIC DATABASES AND CREATING A RECORD TO FULFILL A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST.
...not necessarily something 'that an agency has in fact chosen to create and retain'") (quoting Yeager v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 678 F.2d 315, 321 (D.C. Cir. (183) Id. at 272 (explaining that, because FOIA would mandate the CIA to produce all of the database's contents, providing requestors......
-
The Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments: a minor upgrade to public access law.
...computer tapes omitted some of the identifying information found on the paper forms. See id. (62.) Id. at 365 (citation omitted). (63.) 678 F.2d 315, 321 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (holding that DEA was not required to "collapse" or "compact" computer data for benefit of FOIA (64.) Id. (65.) See id. ......