IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division MICHAEL DRIGGS, et ai., Plaintiffs, v. Civil No. 1:23cv1124 (DJN) CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM ORDER (Denying Search of Operational Files) This Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) matter comes before the Court largely of its own volition. On March 22, 2024, the 13 Plaintiffs in this case filed a Memorandum of Law in support of their contention that Defendant the Central Intelligence Agency “is required to conduct a search of its operational filed under 50 U.S.C. § 3141.”! (ECF No. 19 (“Mem.”) at □□□ Plaintiffs’ Memorandum included no accompanying motion and requested no relief from the Court. Nevertheless, because the parties believe the operational-files issue to be “ripe for the Court’s review” (ECF No. 24 at 2), the Court addresses Plaintiffs’ Memorandum now. The Cou finds Plaintiffs’ request improper in substance and form, so it CONSTRUES Plaintiffs’ Memorandum (ECF No. 19) as a motion and DENIES it. I. LEGAL CONTEXT Understanding of this case’s procedural history requires a review of the statutes that apply to Plaintiffs’ claims — the FOIA and the CIA Information Act (the “CIAIA”). The “basic
I The Plaintiffs are Michael Driggs, Robert Moore, Jana Orear, Christianne □□ □□□□□□□ Thomas Michael Logan, David Logan, Megan Marx, Terri Mumley, John Zimmerlee, Carol Hrdlicka, George “Luck” Patterson, Mark Sauter and The POW Investigative Project, Inc. (ECF No. 1 (““Compl.”) 2-14.) For the sake of convenience, the Court refers to “Plaintiffs”
□□
thrust” of the FOIA was to “pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.” Dept of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 360 (1976) (quotation omitted). To give that public policy effect, the FOIA commands as a general matter that “each agency” in the federal government, upon receiving a “request for records,” “shall make the records promptly available to any person.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). But because “public disclosure is not always in the public interest,” the FOIA contains nine enumerated exemptions from disclosure. Zaid v. Dep t of Justice, 96 F.4th 697, 704 (4th Cir. 2024) (quotation omitted). The FOIA’s “strong presumption in favor of disclosure places the burden on the agency to justify the withholding of any requested documents.” U.S. Dep t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 173 (1991). The issue before the Court must be analyzed through the lens of the FOJA’s third exemption, which states that the FOIA does not apply to documents “specifically exempted from disclosure by statute.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3). Exemption 3’s applicability “depends [not] on the detailed factual contents of specific documents” but rather on “the existence of a relevant statute and the inclusion of withheld material within the statute’s coverage.” Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108, 1126 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting Ass ’n of Retired R.R. Workers v. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd., 830 F.2d 331, 336 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). The “relevant statute” here is the CIA Information Act of 1984 (codified at 50 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq.), so the Court must next survey that statute. Until the CIAIA was enacted, the FOIA applied to the CIA “in precisely the same manner that it applie[d] to other federal agencies.” H.R. Rep. No. 98-726(I), at 4 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3741, 3742.2 But the CIA’s operational files, which “contain[] the most
It should go without saying that legislative history does not change the words of the statute and cannot bind the Court. However, because the legislative history of the CIAIA sets out
sensiitnifvoerm ationc odnicreernicintntlgey l lsioguernccemese tahnodrd arse,cl"oy n tained informatthicaootnu b ledd iscltooFs OeIdrA e quesItdae t5r. sC .o ngrtheesrse foirmep oas ed pesrer u thlaewt o urled dutcheeen dlaedsmsi nisbturrdaeotnnit vhCeeI Ao fs earcahnitdnh ge n inevietxaebmlpyit tiosnp ge ratfiiloefrnsoa mFl O IdAi sclosure. WhertehC eI AIaAp pliidtee sf,an FgOsI sAp 'roviaslimoonessnt t irIeptlr yo.v ithdaets thDei reocftth oeCr I A" maeyx emtphtaa"gt e nc"oyp'esr atfiiloefrnsoa"ml " publication[,]
discloorss ureear,co hrr eviiencw o nnectthieorne w5i0Ut .hS.."§C3 .1 41(Tahe)s .t atute defin"eosp erafitlieotsnoi"a n lc lude: (1fi)leosft hNea tioCnlaaln deSsetrivwniheci edc ohc umetnhtce o ndouffoc rte ign intelloircg oeunnctee rinotpeelrlaiotgriei onnnctsee lloirsg eecnuclreii atyi son arrangeemntosr i nformaetxicohna nwgietfoshr eiggonv ernmenotrst heir intelloirsg eecnucsreei rtvyi ces; (2fi)lesth eDo ifr ectfoorSr caiteean ncTdee chnowlhoigdcyoh c umtehnmete ans byw hifocrehi ginn telloircg oeunnctee reinncitesce ollllietgchtreosduc gihe ntific antde chnsiycsatlean mds; (3fi)leosft hOe fficeo fP ersoSnenceulr wihtiycd ho cumeinntv estigations conducttode edt ermitnhees uitaboifpl oitteyn fotrieailig nnt elloirgence counterinstoeulrlciegse[n.c]e Ida.t§3 14(1)b . I nA pr2i0l1 t5h,De i reecxteomrp 2t1de idff erceatnetg oofor pieersa tfiiloensa l pursuants utbos e(cat)Li.eo tnfrt oemrJ oseWp.Lh a mbteortS tepAhfteenr g2o-o(3dO c2t6., 2016h)ttp,s ://sgp.fas.org/otherg[hottpvs/:i//npteerlm/ac.icac-/Mo93p6fiGl-ePsG-E2H0] ThCeI Ah acsh aractseiorixftz heodes xee mpctaetde gaos"r [it]eiswl iethsith neD irectoofr ate Operatfoiuoran ss" "[;t] iwlietsht ihDnei rectoofSr caiteaenn cTdee chnolaongy1d"1 a; s "[t]iwiltehsit nh e OoffifSc eec urIitdBy y.o "p eraotfsi uobns e(catt)ih,oCe nI A" neneodt well-infanodrmc eodn tempocroamnmeeonuotsnar t yha ec tt'esr tmhsCe,o urtfi ndthsi s legishliasttieovnryel ighatneudns ienfugl . 3 Plainhtaivnffeosi t n dicwahtieccdah t egoofer xieemsp otpeedr atfiiloethnsea ywl an tth e CIAt os earch. evesne arch2 1c[ attheegsofoerr ri eeqssut]ee ifdno rmatJiuodni.W"ca itaIclnhv. c,C . I 3A1O,F . Sup3pd.3 43,8( D.D2.0C1.(8 K)e tBanrjoiw Jna ckJs.o(n)me, p haisnoi rsi ginal). Thed egsnaitioofcn e rtaoipne rnaatfilil oeass e xemdpoten soe tn tdh mea tteTrob. e gin witthh,Ce I AIiAt sperlofv iFdOeIrsAe quewsitttehwr uoss eefuxlc epttoii otsnsts rd iecfatu lt rulUen.d e5r0U .S.§C3 .1 41t(hrce)ce,a tegoofor pieersa tfiiloernsea mla in tsotu hbFejO eIcAt "n[o]twithsstuanbdsiencgt 4iA onnd (ua5n)0dU. e."rS .§C3 .1 41n(odn)-,e xfielmethpsat t "conitnafionr mdaetriioovrnde ids seemdfri onmae txempotpeedr atfiiloecnsana"b l ed isclosed
irrespeocftht eiF vOeI A-exseomuprotcft e hi enf ormatiinto hne mIn.a ddittihoenss teta ot utory excepttihCoeIn AsIp,Ar oviand arerso pawt fohr j udirceivailIe afwc .o ufirntdt sh tahtCe I A "improwpietrhhleryle dq uersetceobdrce dasu osffae i lutroce o mpwliythan yp roviosfi on [§3141t]hc,eo usrth aolrldt ehr[e C ItAos] e arcahnr de vitheeaw p properxieamtpet ed operatfiiloen[anasdl],i " af p proptrodii astcelt,ohr seee c oiritdm sp ropweirtlhyh5 e0Ul .dS.. C. §3141(t)(6).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division MICHAEL DRIGGS, et ai., Plaintiffs, v. Civil No. 1:23cv1124 (DJN) CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM ORDER (Denying Search of Operational Files) This Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) matter comes before the Court largely of its own volition. On March 22, 2024, the 13 Plaintiffs in this case filed a Memorandum of Law in support of their contention that Defendant the Central Intelligence Agency “is required to conduct a search of its operational filed under 50 U.S.C. § 3141.”! (ECF No. 19 (“Mem.”) at □□□ Plaintiffs’ Memorandum included no accompanying motion and requested no relief from the Court. Nevertheless, because the parties believe the operational-files issue to be “ripe for the Court’s review” (ECF No. 24 at 2), the Court addresses Plaintiffs’ Memorandum now. The Cou finds Plaintiffs’ request improper in substance and form, so it CONSTRUES Plaintiffs’ Memorandum (ECF No. 19) as a motion and DENIES it. I. LEGAL CONTEXT Understanding of this case’s procedural history requires a review of the statutes that apply to Plaintiffs’ claims — the FOIA and the CIA Information Act (the “CIAIA”). The “basic
I The Plaintiffs are Michael Driggs, Robert Moore, Jana Orear, Christianne □□ □□□□□□□ Thomas Michael Logan, David Logan, Megan Marx, Terri Mumley, John Zimmerlee, Carol Hrdlicka, George “Luck” Patterson, Mark Sauter and The POW Investigative Project, Inc. (ECF No. 1 (““Compl.”) 2-14.) For the sake of convenience, the Court refers to “Plaintiffs”
□□
thrust” of the FOIA was to “pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.” Dept of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 360 (1976) (quotation omitted). To give that public policy effect, the FOIA commands as a general matter that “each agency” in the federal government, upon receiving a “request for records,” “shall make the records promptly available to any person.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). But because “public disclosure is not always in the public interest,” the FOIA contains nine enumerated exemptions from disclosure. Zaid v. Dep t of Justice, 96 F.4th 697, 704 (4th Cir. 2024) (quotation omitted). The FOIA’s “strong presumption in favor of disclosure places the burden on the agency to justify the withholding of any requested documents.” U.S. Dep t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 173 (1991). The issue before the Court must be analyzed through the lens of the FOJA’s third exemption, which states that the FOIA does not apply to documents “specifically exempted from disclosure by statute.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3). Exemption 3’s applicability “depends [not] on the detailed factual contents of specific documents” but rather on “the existence of a relevant statute and the inclusion of withheld material within the statute’s coverage.” Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108, 1126 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting Ass ’n of Retired R.R. Workers v. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd., 830 F.2d 331, 336 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). The “relevant statute” here is the CIA Information Act of 1984 (codified at 50 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq.), so the Court must next survey that statute. Until the CIAIA was enacted, the FOIA applied to the CIA “in precisely the same manner that it applie[d] to other federal agencies.” H.R. Rep. No. 98-726(I), at 4 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3741, 3742.2 But the CIA’s operational files, which “contain[] the most
It should go without saying that legislative history does not change the words of the statute and cannot bind the Court. However, because the legislative history of the CIAIA sets out
sensiitnifvoerm ationc odnicreernicintntlgey l lsioguernccemese tahnodrd arse,cl"oy n tained informatthicaootnu b ledd iscltooFs OeIdrA e quesItdae t5r. sC .o ngrtheesrse foirmep oas ed pesrer u thlaewt o urled dutcheeen dlaedsmsi nisbturrdaeotnnit vhCeeI Ao fs earcahnitdnh ge n inevietxaebmlpyit tiosnp ge ratfiiloefrnsoa mFl O IdAi sclosure. WhertehC eI AIaAp pliidtee sf,an FgOsI sAp 'roviaslimoonessnt t irIeptlr yo.v ithdaets thDei reocftth oeCr I A" maeyx emtphtaa"gt e nc"oyp'esr atfiiloefrnsoa"ml " publication[,]
discloorss ureear,co hrr eviiencw o nnectthieorne w5i0Ut .hS.."§C3 .1 41(Tahe)s .t atute defin"eosp erafitlieotsnoi"a n lc lude: (1fi)leosft hNea tioCnlaaln deSsetrivwniheci edc ohc umetnhtce o ndouffoc rte ign intelloircg oeunnctee rinotpeelrlaiotgriei onnnctsee lloirsg eecnuclreii atyi son arrangeemntosr i nformaetxicohna nwgietfoshr eiggonv ernmenotrst heir intelloirsg eecnucsreei rtvyi ces; (2fi)lesth eDo ifr ectfoorSr caiteean ncTdee chnowlhoigdcyoh c umtehnmete ans byw hifocrehi ginn telloircg oeunnctee reinncitesce ollllietgchtreosduc gihe ntific antde chnsiycsatlean mds; (3fi)leosft hOe fficeo fP ersoSnenceulr wihtiycd ho cumeinntv estigations conducttode edt ermitnhees uitaboifpl oitteyn fotrieailig nnt elloirgence counterinstoeulrlciegse[n.c]e Ida.t§3 14(1)b . I nA pr2i0l1 t5h,De i reecxteomrp 2t1de idff erceatnetg oofor pieersa tfiiloensa l pursuants utbos e(cat)Li.eo tnfrt oemrJ oseWp.Lh a mbteortS tepAhfteenr g2o-o(3dO c2t6., 2016h)ttp,s ://sgp.fas.org/otherg[hottpvs/:i//npteerlm/ac.icac-/Mo93p6fiGl-ePsG-E2H0] ThCeI Ah acsh aractseiorixftz heodes xee mpctaetde gaos"r [it]eiswl iethsith neD irectoofr ate Operatfoiuoran ss" "[;t] iwlietsht ihDnei rectoofSr caiteaenn cTdee chnolaongy1d"1 a; s "[t]iwiltehsit nh e OoffifSc eec urIitdBy y.o "p eraotfsi uobns e(catt)ih,oCe nI A" neneodt well-infanodrmc eodn tempocroamnmeeonuotsnar t yha ec tt'esr tmhsCe,o urtfi ndthsi s legishliasttieovnryel ighatneudns ienfugl . 3 Plainhtaivnffeosi t n dicwahtieccdah t egoofer xieemsp otpeedr atfiiloethnsea ywl an tth e CIAt os earch. evesne arch2 1c[ attheegsofoerr ri eeqssut]ee ifdno rmatJiuodni.W"ca itaIclnhv. c,C . I 3A1O,F . Sup3pd.3 43,8( D.D2.0C1.(8 K)e tBanrjoiw Jna ckJs.o(n)me, p haisnoi rsi ginal). Thed egsnaitioofcn e rtaoipne rnaatfilil oeass e xemdpoten soe tn tdh mea tteTrob. e gin witthh,Ce I AIiAt sperlofv iFdOeIrsAe quewsitttehwr uoss eefuxlc epttoii otsnsts rd iecfatu lt rulUen.d e5r0U .S.§C3 .1 41t(hrce)ce,a tegoofor pieersa tfiiloernsea mla in tsotu hbFejO eIcAt "n[o]twithsstuanbdsiencgt 4iA onnd (ua5n)0dU. e."rS .§C3 .1 41n(odn)-,e xfielmethpsat t "conitnafionr mdaetriioovrnde ids seemdfri onmae txempotpeedr atfiiloecnsana"b l ed isclosed
irrespeocftht eiF vOeI A-exseomuprotcft e hi enf ormatiinto hne mIn.a ddittihoenss teta ot utory excepttihCoeIn AsIp,Ar oviand arerso pawt fohr j udirceivailIe afwc .o ufirntdt sh tahtCe I A "improwpietrhhleryle dq uersetceobdrce dasu osffae i lutroce o mpwliythan yp roviosfi on [§3141t]hc,eo usrth aolrldt ehr[e C ItAos] e arcahnr de vitheeaw p properxieamtpet ed operatfiiloen[anasdl],i " af p proptrodii astcelt,ohr seee c oiritdm sp ropweirtlhyh5 e0Ul .dS.. C. §3141(t)(6). Subsec(tt)ei sotna blapi rsohceesframd euwraolr kt og ovecrna scehsa lletnhCgeIi A'nsg compliwaint§ch3 e 1 4I1.ne stabltihsfrahamtie nwgo rCko,n grcersesas tpeedcp ilaela rduilnegs fortw os peckiifincodf s§3 1 4(1f)c laimIsaf." complaalilnettgh eraset q uersetceowdre drse
impropweirthlhyeb ledc aoufis mep ropplearc esmoelnietnel yx empotpeedr atfiiloentsha,el" plaimnutsi"tffs upspourcathl legwaitthais ownrno writtens ubmiss5i0Uo .nS.."C . §3141(t)A(sth3 e)H .o usIen tellCiogmmeinttceueen derstthpoirosod v iiswtio ounal,pd p ly whearp el ain"tairffg tuheiasthft e r ecorredqsu ewsetrpeerd o pfielrlewydh ere sthheoyub led
4 Thethrseee excecpotmiporininssf eo rmarteigoanr( d1"i)Un ng iStteadct ietsi ozern s [permanreensti d.e.nwt.hsoh ] a vree qtueeidsnf rmoatioonnt hemse(l2v")ean sys" p;e cial actithveie tyx istoefwn hcieic snh o etx epmtfr om discloasnu(dr3 "e)t" hs;ep ecsiufibcj ect maetr't'o fc ertaiinn vesti"gfoarat niiyom npsr op.r..ii entty hc eo ndoufanc ti netllcieg en acti"v 5i0Ut .yS..§C3 .1 4l{c). filetdhw,eo yu bleod u tesxiedmeop pteerda fitliaeonswnd oa ultl hde rbeesfo urbetj thoee c t searrecvhai,ne ddwi scrleoqsuuirreoe tfmh FeeOn ItAHs.. "RR e.Np o.9. 8 -7a23t64 (.1 ) Alternaitafpi lvaei"lnaytl,il tffeh rgaeetqs u reesctwoeerdrid ems p rowiptehrhbleeylc dao ufs e impreoxpeemrp toipoenr afiotlfiet oshnC,eaI" mlA u srte spboypn rdo v"isdwiwonrrngi tten submitshesaxiteo mnop pteerda fitlileoisnk taecollo yn rteasipno rnescicovurerd rspe enrtfloyrm thfuen ctsiefootrn tish[n 3 § 14l(wbh)it]chp,hel" a icnattnhi deffin s wpiuatt" hes wworirnt ten submiostfs hipeol na"i onwtni5.ff0U ' .sS §.3 C1.4 1(It)tn(h 4ki)iso.n cf dh alalp elnagien,t iff
doneosdt i s"ptuphtreeo porfti h[eeCt IydA e'csi]ts poiu tothnr e e qureesctioenrdptd roso perly exemfiplteeJsdu. d"iW caita3cl1hF 0,S. u p3pda. 4t 1 R.a tahe§3r1 ,(4 f)14( )c halalsesnegret s th"attfih lete hse mshealbvveeeie smn p roperlay"s o dpeesriafigtlnieanaosdttn, eha dul s", inappreoxpermifrpaottmtee hdlFe yO IAI.d" Thetsweso p epclieaalrd eiqnugi rdeonm oeetxn htatsuh usent i voefpr osses ible challSeoln oganeasgsp .l aianststiehffrta thCtseI hAa "sf eadit]lco [o mpwlianyty hp rovision of3[1§]4 j,1u driecvisiahelbaw ela lv aiulnadtbehltreee rsmefostr ti[hnU 5 . S.C. §552(a)(540U) .(S§B.3 )C1].4. 1"I(a fpt) l.a idnetmioffn ssturacfaa hit leauss r eear,oc fh operafitliceoasbnn eca olm peblytl hCeeod u rt.
II. FACTUBAALC KGROUND ThFiOsI sAus ieteC kIrsAe ccoorndcse Arnmienrgia clalnehsge ealdpsdlri ys oonfe rs war( "POWfosl"l)ot whiKeno gr WeaarnN. oa tlo ltf h Pel aianrnteei twffto sh ciasu Fsoeu.r otfh Pel ai(nRtoibMffeosro Jtra eOn,ra e Cahrr,i sOtM'iaalnalnneMedya rSka u(tteorg)e ther, th"eM ooPrlea inhtaibvffeesel "in)t iFgOaIctAai snegs Armeegraridcianfongra ltPe OaWsst sevyeaenrS se.Se a uvt.e roD Sfet patNt o1e.:, 1 7-c2v0-1W19L53 9463,1a 1*t51 (3 D,. D.C. Ju3l0y2, 0 1(9c)afi sleie 2nd0 1M7o)o;v.r C eI NAo,l. : 20-c2v0-2W12L02 2978,3a 4*t11 9 , (D.DJ.u2Cl8.y2, 0 2(2c)afi sleie2 nd0 2W0h)e.thn eM ooPrlea imnotsriteff csFe'On IctAa se rana groiuntn hdDe i storfCi ocltu mtbhieacy,ro sstehdPe o tomaantrcdi eadg aiinthn e E astern DistroifVc itrg inTihaae.tff orrte suilntt hecidis v aiclt ion. ThMeo orPel aintsiuffetsdh C eI Ai nt hDei trsicotfC olumobnAi par 2i0l2, 0 20. ComplaMionot(r,De . DA.pCr2..0 2 ,0 20E)C,FN o1.. O vethre n exyte aarna dh altfhC,eI A slowplryo durceecdo arndtdsh ,pe ar tifielsec dr omsost ifoorns su mmaryj udgmienDn etc ember 202an1d J anu2a0ry2 2I.nJ ul2y0 2J2u,d Rgoey Cc.eL amberdtehn itheeMd o orPel aintiffs'
motifoorsn u mmaryj udgmaennpdartt l yg ranttheCedI Am'ost ifoorsn u mmaryj udgment. Moo2r0e2W,2L 2983a4t*1 l9I.,n d enytihnMego orPel ainmtoitffisJo'un d,Lg ameb erth nottehdta htMe o orPel aihnat"dir ffe peastteadtthleay[tt dh C]e I Am usste arcihto sp erational filesI.da" t* 4J.u dLgaem berrtehm intdhMeeod o rPel ainttihfftashtC e I A'osp eratfiiloensa l counlodbt es earcwhietdha os uhto woifnng o ncompwlii§than 3c1e4 -1a p rovitshitaohtne MoorPel ain"t[idffnisod t] raaniadss eh"o wtihntaght e fya itlome adk eI.d Judge Laimsbsehuriestsdummh ary judgmoepnitn iinMo ono roenJ ul2y82 ,0 22. Nearlaym onltha ttehrMe,o orPel aintifftsoa mmeontvdhe ecdio rm pltaopi lnettha edC IA's noncomplwiia§tn h3c1e4 M1o.t ifoornL e atvoAe m enCdo mplaint(,D .MDAo.uCog.2re. 5 , 2022E)C,FN o4.2 5.T hCeI Ao ppsoethde M oorPel ainmtoitffisao'nn Jd,u dLgaem bedretnhi ed
iitn M arch2 023J.u dLgameb erthn ottehdta htMe o orPel aindtinidoff htsi dthea tth emiort ion wamso tiv"aatltee dai snpt art b yc ertaasipne cotf[s J udLgameb erthi'nsi]st uimalm ary judgmdeencti .s..i osn,p ecifitchpaeol rtliyco onn cerninogp erationMaelm ofirlaensd.u"m Ordaet3r ,M oo(rDe. DM.arC..3 02,0 23E)C,FN o4.6 A.p parentlMyo,o rPtelh aei n"tdiiffds
s ThMeo orPel ainmtoitffiasol'nss oo ugthobt r iMnigc hDareilg -gnso waP lainitni ff thciass- ei nthteoM oocraes e. noktn otwh CeI Aw oubleda ssertaGi nlgo mreasrp o6un nstethi"eCl I Am ovefodr summary judgm-ebnutpt r ovindore eda stohnta hte hya dde lauynetadift leJ ru dLgaem behrtha rudl ed agaitnhsetIm .dJ udLgaem befortuhn tdh tiobs e u nddueel aIyna. d ditJiuodLnga,em berth fountdh tahtMe o orPel ainatttieffmstp'oit n v§o k3e14lw(at)fus t ibleec,a tuhsaeeffi davtihtast thMeo orPel aintpirffosv ipdreodvw �ode fulilnys uffictio"e dnetm ones]tt hraatt [o perational filewse rwreo ngfulwliyt hhealndwd"o unlods tu rvaim voet itoodn i smiIsdas t4--. 5 .
Inr espotnoJs ued Lgaem berstehc'oasnd dv erurlsient ghM,eo orPel ainjtoiiffnst ly stipuwliattthheC edI At od ismtihsecsia rsp eur sutaonF tde erRaullo efC ivPirlo cedure 41(a)(l)J(oAiS)nt(tii piu)lM.a otoi(roDne., D A.pCr2..4 2,0 23E)C,FN o4.9 L.e stsh ant hree montlhasto enJr u,l1 y22 ,0 2t3h,Me o orPel ainatnithdffe sip rr opocsoe-dp laintiff Michae Drigfiglsea nd e wF OIrAe quweisttthh C eI An,o wj oiinnet dh eeiffro rtbsyM ikLeo gaDna,v id LogaMne,g aMnar xT,e rMruim leJyo,hnZ imme,rC lareoHelr dliGcekoar",gL eu cPka"t terson, antdh PeO WI nvestPirgoajtIeincvcate". , n, o npcroorfipto rfoautnidoendM" o boyrP el aintiff MarSka eurt(.E CNFo .1 -(1" FORIeAq ueast1t ;C" o)m p,rl1. 4 .O)nA ugu1s6t2, 0 2h3a,v ing constructivelthye irerem xehdaiuesstth eeuFd nO dIeAtr,h P el aintisffuisit nt fi hlDieisds t7rict. (Com,rpl1,r.8 -20.)
6 Thien famGoluosm reasrp onse aaF nOsIwrAee rqsub ey"s nte iatdmhiettri nnogr denytihneegx istoeftn hcee " dociunqm ueenst,tos in to hnteh eotrhtyah te evxeirsyt oefn ce respodnosciumveecn otnss tiintfuotrmeastt hifaoatnl w list haFi OnI eAx emptAiCoLnv.U. DeptD eof3f8,F9 .S up2pd.5 475,5(7S .D.2N0.0Y5T.)h e.t ermt akietnssa mfreo ma s eries ofFOcIaAsseese kiinnfgo rmoantt hiCeoI nA s'esc orwente rosfth hiseph iHpu ghGelso mar ExplSoereee.,rPg .h. ip,lip v.l C iIA5,4 F6. 21d0 0190,1 0-(1D2.C Ci.1r 9.7 (6d)e scritbhien g CIA'rse fustaoel i tchoenrfi ormrd enayn cyo nnecttoti hvoeen s sel). 7 Venluieie nths i Dsi stbreiccatthu esC eI Ar'esc olridiksteh,s e adquamratye rs, presumbaefob ulnyid nAr lingCtoounn Vtyi,r gi5niU a..S §. C5.5 2(a)(I4nad) d(iBt)i.o n, PlaiMnitcihffDa reilg rgess idtheisDs i isntr miackti,in atgp ropfoerurm u ndtehrFe O IaAn d theC IAIIAd.( permistut"iiittnn hg de i stirnwi hcittc hhce o mplariensanitd 5e0Us ."S).;C . §3141(g)(3). The CIA answered Plaintiffs’ Complaint on October 12, 2023. (ECF No. 8.) On January 18, 2024, this case was transferred from Senior District Judge T.S. Ellis, III to the undersigned (ECF No. 11), and the Court held an initial pretrial conference with the parties on January 30 (ECF No. 13). At a subsequent pretrial conference on March 13, the Court directed the parties to craft a schedule for “rolling production” of the CIA’s records that would facilitate efficient resolution of the case (ECF No. 22 (“Hr’g Tr.”) at 4:21—25) and asked the parties to determine the issues that remained in dispute (id. at 5:8-12), Counsel for Plaintiffs noted that the parties had reached an impasse regarding the CIA’s obligation to search its operational records and asked for permission to file Plaintiff’s position on that issue. (/d. at 10:6—9.) The Court orally granted that permission. (/d. at 10:14.) On March 22, Plaintiffs filed the Memorandum now at issue. (ECF No. 19.) Although the Memorandum sought no relief from the Court, the CIA responded to the Memorandum and urged the Court to “deny Plaintiffs’ request for a search of the [CIA’s] operational files.” (ECF No. 21 (“Opp.”) at 11.) In their Reply, Plaintiffs repeated their contention that the CIA had to search its operational files. (ECF No. 23.) In addition, on May 10, the parties represented to the Court that the operational-files issue stands “ripe for the Court’s review.” (ECF No. 24 at 2.) The Court therefore CONSTRUES Plaintiffs’ Memorandum as a motion to compel a search of the CIA’s operational files pursuant to Rule 37(a)(1) and proceeds to resolve it.®
8 Although Plaintiffs never filed a motion requesting action by the Court, as required by Rule 7(b)(1), the Court exercises its discretion to overlook that procedural error.
Iii. ANALYSIS Plaintiffs’ arguments prove wholly inadequate to justify a search of the CIA’s operational files, because they misapply the governing law.’ Plaintiffs argue that the circumstances of this case suffice to warrant a search of the CIA’s operational files under the CIAIA. As discussed above, to compel the CIA to search its operational files, Plaintiffs must show that the CIA “has improperly withheld requested records because of failure to comply with [a] provision of [50 U.S.C. § 3141].” 50 U.S.C. § 3141(f)(6). Plaintiffs’ Memorandum fails this elementary requirement, because the Memorandum nowhere explains how the CIA fell out of compliance with this § 3141. To meet their burden under subsection (f)(6), Plaintiffs invoke subsection (f)(3). However, that provision merely dictates the pleading standard that governs when a plaintiff seeks to make out an improper-placement claim; in support of such a contention, a plaintiff must provide a “sworn written submission, based upon personal knowledge or otherwise admissible evidence.” 50 U.S.C. § 3141(f)(3). Plaintiffs satisfy that pleading standard through affidavits attached to their complaint. But, critically and fatally, subsection (f) does not require the Court to order a search of operational files on a mere satisfaction of the pleading standard. Only § 3141(f)(6) gives the Court the power to order such a search, and to satisfy its requirements, Plaintiffs must show that the CIA has (1) withheld records (2) because of (3) noncompliance with § 3141. The Court addresses that standard below, and it quickly concludes that Plaintiffs do not meet it.
9 The substantial overlap between the plaintiffs, subject matter and counsel in Moore and this case motivated the Court to ask for the parties’ “respective positions on the issue-preclusive effect of the Moore case on this action.” (ECF No. 18 43.) The parties discuss issue preclusion, as the Court requested. However, the Court need not address issue preclusion at this time, because the Court finds no difficulty in rejecting Plaintiffs’ contentions on the merits.
Plaionntgileffyss t'au stra etsi tshfyreie nqgut iescsiatbtn efoe u nidtn w boa re paragorfta hpeChiosrm pl(aCionm,rtp.2,rl 8. - 3T0h.op)sa er agrreafeprhPesln acien tiffs' declarNaetiitmohenensrt.§ i 3 o1n4sT1 h.fie r dsetc laerxaetcibuoyfotn re,md Ue nri tSetda tes SenBaotbSo mri stthat,th eMasrtS . m ihtashse "ehnu ndorfce ldass dsoicfiuemdte hncatotsu ld ansdh obuerl edl ea(sCeodm,r.p2" l8 .T. h)se e cdoencdl areaxteicobunyKt, ee vdSi hni ap p, formerC IoAffi csetra,mt uectshh s ea mteh iMnrgS.:h iapvpet rhdsao tc um"ernetltsato th ien g
fatoefP OW.s. c.a cnl ebaerr ellye "wa istehjdoeuotp arndaitzisioenncgaua lrn tidht ouyus g ht tboe d eclas(sIaid,rtfi 2 e 9d..) Plaidnetcilffarsfoa'cn uotsnws h etthhCeeIr oA v er-cdloacsusmiMefianeytssbs oe.. Buwth etadh oecru msehnortue lmdca lians hsainsfio etdht idono wg i wthhe tthhCeeIr hA a s "imprwoiptehrrhleeyql udre esctobereddc sao uffas iel tucoro em pwliyat nhpy r ovoif[s5 i0o n U.S§.3 C1.4 15]0U. ."S §.3 C1.4 1(If)n(d6eb)ee.dc ,aP ulsaei finltesiduffb iset fo trheCe I A prodauncryee dc oPrldasi,cn attieffgsoc roiunclohadtla lsvyae t issufibesde( cf)t(i6o)n' s requirbeemceaPnultsasei, cn otuinlffo(dstna di,n dedeond o),st hotwht ahtCe I hAa wsi thheld respornescioivrtnedh fi ser pslta ce. Indeeevdei,Pnf l aipnrtoivffeisvd ieddte hntachtCee I hAa wdi thahneryle dc oaratld ls,
anedv eiinfwt e rtert uheta htde o cumaeitns tsdsuon e ow tarr anctl assitfihcaaastts ieornt,i on wounlodst ae yv eawn o radb otuhpter ospuebroj fae§ c 3 t1 (4f)1)(a 3tta-c"kt hper oporfi ety thaeg endceyc'ists poi utothnr e e qureesctoierndpdt rsoo peexrelmyfip lteeJsdu. d"i Wcaitaclh , 31F0.S up3pad.4t 1 A.st hCeo udrits'csu osfts hCieIo AnsI hAo awnsi ,m proper-placeme theoofnr oyn compwliit§a3 hn1 rc4ee1q udiermeosn sntorttah ttahitdeo o nc umreenqtuse sted shobuedl edc lasbsutithfi taehtdde o, c umreenqtushe asvbteee edwn i thshoellbedel cyat uhseey wereer ronpeloauwcsieltdyoh nioenft h2e1c agtoertihecasut r rsetnaetnxldey m frpotmth e FOIA under § 3141(a) and (b). Plaintiffs’ declarations do not come close to satisfying the statute. !° IV. CONCLUSION If Plaintiffs seek an order to compel a search of the CIA’s operational files, Plaintiffs must demonstrate how, if at all, the CIA has “improperly withheld requested records because of failure to comply with” the requirements of Section 3141. 50 U.S.C. § 3141(f)(6). When doing so, Plaintiffs must, at least, explain in what manner the CIA has violated the provisions of the CIAIA. Generalized accusations of overclassification do not suffice. The Court FINDS that Plaintiffs have not carried their burden to establish demonstrate that the CIA “has improperly withheld records because of failure to comply with [the CIATA],” and it thus lacks any power to order the CIA to “search and review the appropriate exempted operational file[s].” 50 U.S.C. § 3141(f)(6). Accordingly, although the Court exercises its discretion to CONSTRUE Plaintiffs’ Memorandum (ECF No. 19) as a motion requesting relief, the Court hereby DENIES that motion. Let the Clerk file a copy of this Memorandum Order and notify all counsel of record. It isso ORDERED.
/s/ | \u David J. Novak MY, United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Date: May 21, 2024
i In their reply, Plaintiffs quote the CIA’s opposition to their Memorandum, and they once again reprint portions of their Complaint for the Court’s edification. (ECF No. 23 at 5-6.) Plaintiffs, however, do not explain why their Complaint, which focuses solely on the allegedly improper classification of responsive documents, shows that the CIA has failed to comply with the provisions of a statute that hinges nothing on whether a document has been classified or declassified. 11