Spannaus v. Central Intelligence Agency

841 F. Supp. 14, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18593, 1993 WL 546412
CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedDecember 30, 1993
DocketCiv. A. 92-410 SSH
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 841 F. Supp. 14 (Spannaus v. Central Intelligence Agency) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Spannaus v. Central Intelligence Agency, 841 F. Supp. 14, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18593, 1993 WL 546412 (D.D.C. 1993).

Opinion

OPINION

STANLEY S. HARRIS, District Judge.

Before the Court are defendants’ motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs opposition, defendants’ reply, plaintiffs supplemental filing, and defendants’ surreply. Also before the Court are numerous affidavits. Although “[f]indings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions under Rule '12 or 56,” the Court nonetheless sets forth its analysis. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).

Background

The present litigation under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (“FOIA”), surrounds the secure voice communications system operated by the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”). Since August 1992, the CIA has operated a secure voice communications system between CIA headquarters and CIA overseas field stations to provide field stations located in volatile, hostile or unstable parts of the world with a secure means of speaking directly with headquarters. After learning of this technology through media coverage of the Iran-Contra prosecution, plaintiff submitted identical FOIA and Privacy Act requests to the CIA and the Office of Independent Counsel (“OIC”), requesting any secure voice communications records that mentioned plaintiff, Lyndon H. La-Rouche, Jr., Jeffrey Steinberg, Paul Gold-stein, the Executive Intelligence Review (or EIR) magazine, the Schiller Institute, New Solidarity, the National Caucus of Labor Committees (or NCLC), or the LaRouche Organization or variations on that name. Plaintiff believes that the secure voice communication tapes or transcripts are likely to contain responsive information because of the involvement of LaRouche and his supporters in foreign policy affairs and intelligence operations.

Initially, the CIA refused to search the tapes or transcripts on the grounds that they had not been indexed. The OIC also did not search the tapes, and referred plaintiffs request to the CIA, the agency which generated the tapes, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 701.-12(b). 1 After the beginning of this litigation, the CIA and the OIC conducted several searches which did not reveal any responsive material. Additionally, plaintiff modified his request to narrow the class of tapes to be searched for references to the nine individuals and organizations listed in his original request.

Defendants contend that summary judgment is appropriate on the grounds that the searches thus far conducted are adequate under the FOIA and that further searches would be unreasonably burdensome. Plaintiff counters that the likelihood of the existence of responsive material and the possibility of conducting additional, more particularized searches create a genuine issue of material fact as to the adequacy of the searches.

Discussion

To prevail on summary judgment in a FOIA action, as in any other, a defendant agency must show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In considering a summary judgment motion, all evidence and the inferences to be drawn from it must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, *16 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). To meet its burden, an agency must prove that “each document that falls within the class requested either has been produced, is unidentifiable, or is wholly exempt from the Act’s inspection requirements.” Goland v. Central Intelligence Agency, 607 F.2d 339, 352 (D.C.Cir.1978), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 927, 100 S.Ct. 1312, 63 L.Ed.2d 759 (1980).

Defendants contend that they have discharged their FOIA obligations by conducting adequate searches which revealed no responsive material. The adequacy of an agency’s search is governed by a standard of reasonableness, and is dependent on the circumstances of each case. Weisberg v. Department of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C.Cir.1983). Because the agency is often in sole possession of the records and has conducted the information searches itself, the trial judge may rely on agency affidavits in determining whether an agency has met its burden of proof. Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 126 (D.C.Cir.1982); Goland, 607 F.2d at 352. The affidavits must be relatively detailed, nonconclusory, and submitted in good faith. Goland, 607 F.2d at 352 (citing Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826 (D.C.Cir.1973), ce rt. denied, 415 U.S. 977, 94 S.Ct. 1564, 39 L.Ed.2d 873 (1974). When an agency relies on affidavits to establish the adequacy of its search, the affidavits should identify the searched files and describe the structure of the agency’s file system which makes further searches difficult. Church of Scientology v. IRS, 792 F.2d 146, 151 (D.C.Cir.1986). If the requester produces countervailing evidence placing the sufficiency of the identification or retrieval procedures genuinely in issue, summary judgment is inappropriate. Founding Church of Scientology v. National Security Agency, 610 F.2d 824, 836 (D.C.Cir.1979).

The Adequacy of the CIA Search

Over the life of the secure voice communications system, which has been in continuous use since August 1982, over 330,000 hours of tapes and reels have been collected through the use of three different types of recording technology. Declaration of Katherine M. Strieker ¶¶ 13-18. To track this information, the CIA maintains two sets of logs that reflect the daily activity that occurs on the secure voice communications system. Id. ¶ 9. These tape logs are compiled by the CIA’s Office of Communications (“OC”) and Directorate of Operations (“DO”). Id. The OC logs are produced daily and document all taping activity for a particular day. Id. ¶ 11.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Parker v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
289 F. Supp. 3d 32 (D.C. Circuit, 2017)
Ray v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
District of Columbia, 2011
Davis v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
770 F. Supp. 2d 93 (District of Columbia, 2011)
Scaff-Martinez v. Drug Enforcement Administration
770 F. Supp. 2d 17 (District of Columbia, 2011)
Jimenez v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys
764 F. Supp. 2d 174 (District of Columbia, 2011)
Penny v. U.S. Department of Justice
646 F. Supp. 2d 110 (District of Columbia, 2009)
Blunt-Bey v. U.S. Department of Justice
District of Columbia, 2009
Brehm v. Department of Defense
577 F. Supp. 2d 446 (District of Columbia, 2008)
Allnutt v. United States Deparment of Justice
99 F. Supp. 2d 673 (D. Maryland, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
841 F. Supp. 14, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18593, 1993 WL 546412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spannaus-v-central-intelligence-agency-dcd-1993.