Stalcup v. CIA , 768 F.3d 65 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •           United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 13-2329
    THOMAS STALCUP,
    Plaintiff, Appellant,
    v.
    CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
    Defendant, Appellee.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
    [Hon. F. Dennis Saylor, IV, U.S. District Judge]
    Before
    Howard, Lipez and Barron,
    Circuit Judges.
    Richard K. Latimer for appellant.
    Patrick G. Nemeroff, Attorney, Department of Justice, with
    whom Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Carmen M. Ortiz,
    United States Attorney, Michael Sady, Assistant United States
    Attorney and Leonard Schaitman, Attorney, were on brief, for
    appellee.
    October 6, 2014
    HOWARD, Circuit Judge.           Though clouded by an airline
    disaster and claims of a government cover-up, this case ultimately
    turns    on    a   relatively    straightforward        question:        must   the
    government release certain information? Plaintiff-Appellant Thomas
    Stalcup brought this Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") suit
    against    the     Central   Intelligence      Agency   ("CIA"),    seeking     two
    documents from an investigation into the crash of TWA Flight 800.
    Stalcup also sought the names of the eyewitnesses interviewed
    during the investigation.            The district court rejected Stalcup's
    requests, concluding that FOIA permitted the agency to withhold the
    sought-after material.         Because we agree with each of the district
    court's conclusions, we affirm its decision to grant summary
    judgment for the CIA.
    I.
    On July 17, 1996, TWA Flight 800 exploded in mid-air and
    crashed eight miles south of Long Island, New York.                  Pursuant to
    its     obligations    under    49    C.F.R.     §   800.3(a),     the    National
    Transportation Safety Board ("NTSB") launched an investigation into
    the   tragedy.        The    Board   quickly    arrived    at    three   possible
    explanations for the crash:            a bomb, a missile, or a mechanical
    failure.
    Given the possibility of criminal or terrorist activity,
    the FBI joined the probe. A central component of the Bureau's task
    was to interview eyewitnesses.            Many of the 244 individuals who
    -2-
    were interviewed described a streak of light rising up to the plane
    just   before   the   explosion.         Given   the   consistency     of    that
    narrative, the FBI asked the CIA to analyze the accounts and
    explore the likelihood of a missile strike.
    The CIA reviewed the eyewitness reports along with raw
    flight and radar data.       It concluded that the eyewitnesses had not
    seen a missile soaring towards the plane but, instead, had observed
    the burning aircraft in various stages of dismantling.                 On March
    28, 1997, the CIA passed this analysis along to the FBI, which
    ultimately reached the same conclusion.           In November 1997, the CIA
    publicized these results in a video entitled: "TWA Flight 800: What
    Did the Eyewitnesses See?"
    As new data emerged, the CIA continued its work.                 For
    instance, in 1998 it produced a 17-page draft report analyzing new
    radar tracking data ("Analysis of Radar Tracking").              At that time,
    it also created an 18-page draft report assessing the plane's
    flight   path    ("Dynamic     Flight    Simulation").         Both   documents
    contained    recommendations     to     the   agency   about    how   the   newly
    acquired data should impact the analysis. In 1999, the CIA relayed
    this   new   evaluation   to    a   NTSB-sponsored      group    studying     the
    eyewitness accounts.
    On August 23, 2000, the investigation, which had been the
    largest and most expensive in the NTSB's history, reached its
    terminus. The Board adopted the CIA's assessment of the eyewitness
    -3-
    accounts and concluded that a mechanical explosion in the center
    wing fuel tank had caused the crash.             The NTSB distributed a final
    report detailing these findings.
    A decade later, theorizing that the CIA was covering up
    that the true cause of the crash was a missile strike, Stalcup sent
    the CIA a letter requesting "copies of all data, images, video,
    documents and/or other information related to or a product of the
    CIA's involvement in the TWA Flight 800 investigation."                    He also
    asked for the "'Technical Analysis Briefing: TWA Flight 800'. . .;
    . . . all eyewitness documents, reports, videos, images, and/or
    audio provided to the CIA . . . [and] any and all correspondence .
    . . regarding the CIA's . . . analysis of the eyewitness evidence."
    The CIA first disclosed twenty-five documents that it had
    previously    released    in    response        to   a   similar   FOIA   request.
    Unsatisfied with the CIA's response, Stalcup brought this FOIA
    action.   5 U.S.C. § 552.       The complaint, filed in the District of
    Massachusetts, asked the court to order the CIA to disclose
    additional    material.        As   the    litigation      progressed,     the   CIA
    provided Stalcup with forty-nine documents, a DVD, eighty-nine
    partially-redacted documents, and fourteen documents created by
    other agencies.      The agency also filed a Vaughn index with the
    court detailing its redactions and withholdings.
    Nonetheless,      Stalcup     demanded      more.     He     requested
    unredacted versions of the 1998 Analysis of Radar Tracking document
    -4-
    (only    the    technical      data,   graphs,       and    certain     headings    were
    initially provided); the 1998 Dynamic Flight Simulation analysis
    (only the headings had been released); and the names of the
    eyewitnesses interviewed by the FBI.
    In due course, the CIA moved for summary judgment, which
    the district court granted.              The court concluded that the agency
    had     properly      withheld     the     requested           documents    under    the
    deliberative         process     exemption      of       the     law,   5   U.S.C.     §
    552(b)(5)(hereinafter          "exemption       5"),       and    had   appropriately
    redacted the eyewitness names pursuant to the law enforcement
    exemption       of   the   act,    5     U.S.C.      §     552(b)(7)(C)(hereinafter
    "exemption 7(C)").         The court also rejected Stalcup's contentions
    that disclosure of the information was required in light of alleged
    government misconduct.           Finally, the court concluded that the CIA
    had performed an adequate search in response to the FOIA request.
    This timely appeal followed.
    II.
    We review a district court's grant of summary judgment in
    a FOIA case de novo.           Moffat v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 
    716 F.3d 244
    , 250 (1st Cir. 2013).              Accordingly, we draw all reasonable
    inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and will only affirm
    the district court's decision if no genuine dispute of material
    fact exists and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
    -5-
    III.
    FOIA is an important tool in holding the government
    accountable because it provides citizens a means to "know what
    their government is up to."         Carpenter v. U.S. Dep't of Justice,
    
    470 F.3d 434
    , 437 (1st Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and
    citation omitted).         By establishing a presumption in favor of
    agency disclosure, Congress aimed to "expose the operations of
    federal agencies to public scrutiny."               Providence Journal Co. v.
    U.S. Dep't of Army, 
    981 F.2d 552
    , 556 (1st Cir. 1992).                     The need
    for transparency, however, must be balanced with the goal of the
    "efficient administration of government."              
    Carpenter, 470 F.3d at 438
    .    Accordingly, Congress provided a number of exemptions that
    permit an agency to withhold certain documents from release.                     To
    fulfill the broad purposes of FOIA, we construe these exemptions
    narrowly.       FBI v. Abramsom, 
    456 U.S. 615
    , 630 (1982) (citation
    omitted).
    Two   exemptions   take     center    stage     in   this    appeal:
    exemption 5, the deliberative process exemption, and exemption
    7(C), the law enforcement exemption.              We note at the outset that
    the    Ninth    Circuit   has   recently       addressed   a   nearly   identical
    challenge to the exact materials at issue here.                     Lahr v. Nat'l
    Transp. Safety Bd., 
    569 F.3d 964
    (9th Cir. 2009).                    After an in
    camera review, that court determined that the government had
    properly withheld the material.            Though we are not bound by that
    -6-
    conclusion, and would independently arrive at the same result based
    on this record alone, we do find Lahr to be persuasive.                 After
    considering the Ninth Circuit's thoughtful analysis, the CIA's
    extensive declaration in this case, and the absence of any viable
    argument to the contrary, we are left satisfied that the CIA's
    response to the FOIA request accorded with the law.
    A.   Exemption 5: The Deliberative Process Exemption
    Exemption 5 of FOIA, the deliberative process exemption, permits
    an agency to withhold "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters
    which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in
    litigation with the agency." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). It thus generally exempts
    from   disclosure   documents   containing   work   product,   attorney-client
    correspondence, or material that is otherwise "privileged in the civil
    discovery context."     NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 
    421 U.S. 132
    ,
    149, 154 (1975). The government carries the burden of establishing
    the applicability of the exemption and must show: (1) that the
    withheld material is an inter- or intra- agency memorandum -- an
    uncontested issue here; (2) that the document is deliberative; and
    (3) that it is predecisional.       Providence Journal 
    Co., 981 F.2d at 557
    .
    The government asserts that it properly withheld the 1998
    Analysis of Radar Tracking and the 1998 Dynamic Flight Simulation
    under the exemption. Stalcup, however, contends that the documents
    are neither deliberative nor predecisional.            Though the analysis
    -7-
    intersects at times, the two criteria are distinct prongs and must
    be examined separately.
    To satisfy the "deliberative" element of the exception,
    a document must reflect "the give-and-take of the consultative
    process."       Petroleum Info. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 
    976 F.2d 1429
    , 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citations and internal quotation
    marks omitted).      More specifically, the document must: "(i) form[]
    an   essential     link   in   a   specified    consultative      process,   (ii)
    reflect[] the personal opinions of the writer rather than the
    policy of the agency, and (iii) if released, . . . inaccurately
    reflect    or    prematurely       disclose    the   views   of   the   agency."
    Providence Journal 
    Co., 981 F.2d at 559
    (internal quotation marks
    and citations omitted). Conversely, a document "consisting only of
    compiled factual material or purely factual material contained in
    deliberative memoranda and severable from its context" is subject
    to disclosure.      EPA v. Mink, 
    410 U.S. 73
    , 87-88 (1973).
    Stalcup speculates that the two documents primarily
    contain factual information respecting the cause of the Flight 800
    crash.    He postulates that neither focuses on any policy issue or
    legal question.      The district court, as he sees it, thus failed to
    differentiate between "materials reflecting deliberative or policy-
    making processes on the one hand, and purely factual, investigative
    matters on the other."         
    Id. at 89.
    -8-
    Stalcup's contention is dubious.               Though the Supreme
    Court in Mink did distinguish between purely factual material and
    policy prescriptions, the Court also emphasized that "Congress
    sensibly    discarded    a   wooden    exemption     that    could   have    meant
    disclosure     of     manifestly      private      and   confidential       policy
    recommendations simply because the document containing them also
    happened to contain factual data."              
    Mink, 410 U.S. at 90
    .          The
    question is not merely whether the documents contain factual
    information -- or even whether the document is predominantly
    comprised of findings of fact -- but rather the degree to which the
    facts are indissolubly linked to the broader analysis.                       Thus,
    although the two documents may contain certain facts, that alone
    does little to advance the analysis.
    Instead, the issue hinges on whether the documents were
    "prepared to facilitate and inform a final decision or deliberative
    function entrusted to the agency."              Providence Journal 
    Co., 981 F.2d at 560
    .    In Lahr, the Ninth Circuit reviewed the documents at
    issue here and concluded that each contains a preliminary analysis
    of newly acquired data and that both discuss recommendations for
    agency management to consider.               
    Lahr, 569 F.3d at 983
    .            For
    instance, the Dynamic Flight Simulation "exposes in detail the
    thought process of the CIA analysts involved in calculating the
    simulated    flight     path,   as    well    as   language      reflecting    the
    decisionmaking      process."        
    Id. Moreover, if
      released,    both
    -9-
    documents would "expose the agency's internal deliberations in such
    a   way   that    would       discourage    candid   discussion    and    effective
    decisionmaking."          
    Id. Although factual
      findings     are   indeed
    included in the documents, they are tethered to broader policy
    considerations.         
    Id. The Ninth
    Circuit's conclusion coheres with the CIA's
    declaration and Vaughn index in this case.                  The Analysis of Radar
    Tracking, for example, has the label "draft" on it, was shown to
    the   NTSB   but      never     finalized,     contains     analytical    opinions,
    assessments, and judgments, and was passed on to agency management
    for possible policy changes.                 The Dynamic Flight Simulation,
    meanwhile,       is    also     labeled     "draft",   includes    opinions      and
    information relevant to calculating the flight path, identifies
    challenges to conducting the analysis, and was also provided to
    agency management but never finalized.                 Stalcup has provided no
    reason to question those descriptions.
    Further, to the extent that the documents contain purely
    factual information severable from the analysis, any worries can be
    put to rest.          The district court in Lahr had ordered the CIA to
    provide any factual material that could be separated.                     
    Lahr, 569 F.3d at 983
    .      In turn, the CIA released -- and provided to Stalcup
    in this case -- certain radar data, graphs, and headings from those
    documents.       Stalcup has failed to raise a genuine dispute that any
    additional information is severable.
    -10-
    In his reply brief, Stalcup presents a number of new
    arguments.     Among them is his contention that the passage of time
    undermines the basis for enforcing the exemption.       See National
    Security Archive v. Central Intelligence Agency, 
    752 F.3d 460
    (D.C.
    Cir. 2014).     We need not consider that claim here since it, like
    his other new arguments, is waived.     See,e.g., 
    Carpenter, 470 F.3d at 440
    n.9.
    Stalcup next takes aim at the predecisional prong of the
    requirement.    To satisfy this element, a document must be prepared
    "in order to assist an agency decisionmaker in arriving at his [or
    her] decision."    Town of Norfolk v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 
    968 F.2d 1438
    , 1458 (1st Cir. 1992) (citations omitted).       An agency
    claiming the exemption must "(i) pinpoint the specific agency
    decision to which the document correlates, (ii) establish that its
    author prepared the document for the purpose of assisting the
    agency official charged with making the decision, and (iii) verify
    that the document precedes, in temporal sequence, the decision to
    which it relates."     Providence 
    Journal, 981 F.2d at 557
    (internal
    quotation marks and citations omitted).
    Stalcup argues that the CIA determined the cause of the
    crash in 1997, but only created the two documents at issue in 1998
    after it had reached that decision.       From his perspective, the
    documents were produced solely to reconcile new data that did not
    support the agency's initial conclusion. Thus, he asserts, the CIA
    -11-
    improperly attempted to "explain agency action already taken or an
    agency decision already made."    Sears, Roebuck & 
    Co., 421 U.S. at 153
    .
    The roadblock in Stalcup's path is that the CIA's task
    did not end in 1997 when it reached its initial conclusion.
    Instead, as would any reasonable government entity presented with
    new data, it undertook to determine whether its prior assessment
    was accurate or whether it needed to change its position.
    Again, the Lahr court describes the documents well.            The
    Dynamic Flight Simulation is "based on additional and more complete
    data that became available over the course of the investigation."
    
    Lahr, 569 F.3d at 982-83
    .        The court further observes that,
    "[a]lthough it is dated after the November 1997 CIA animation, it
    was clearly prepared for the specific purpose of aiding the agency
    in its determination of the likely flight path of the aircraft
    following the explosion, a determination central to the CIA's task
    of explaining what the eyewitnesses actually saw."            
    Id. at 983.
    The Analysis of Radar Tracking, too, "contains conclusions and
    thoughts of CIA analysts concerning the viability and accuracy of
    certain radar data," and therefore forced the CIA to ask whether it
    needed to reconsider its decision.      
    Id. at 983.
       Stalcup offers us
    no basis upon which to reject that reasoning.
    Finally,   Stalcup   maintains    that,     even   if   the   twin
    justifications of exemption 5 are met, release of the documents is
    -12-
    nevertheless appropriate.     Emphasizing his belief that the CIA
    participated in a cover-up, he urges us to endorse a government
    misconduct waiver.     Drawing from the civil litigation context,
    Texaco P.R., Inc. v. Dep't of Consumer Affairs, 
    60 F.3d 867
    , 885
    (1st Cir. 1995), he argues that the exemptions should be waived if
    the evidence "warrant[s] a belief by a reasonable person that the
    alleged   government   impropriety   might   have    occurred."    Nat'l
    Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 
    541 U.S. 157
    , 174 (2004).        He
    points to the approach of the District of D.C., which has employed
    a narrow waiver in FOIA cases presenting "extreme government
    wrongdoing."   Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of Am. (NACA) v. U.S.
    Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 
    2013 WL 5314457
    ,
    at *8 (D.D.C. Sept. 24, 2013); see also Enviro Tech Int'l, Inc. v.
    EPA, 
    371 F.3d 370
    , 376 (7th Cir. 2004) (assuming that a waiver
    might apply for ultra vires actions by an agency). Contra Appleton
    Papers, Inc. v. EPA, 
    702 F.3d 1018
    , 1022 (7th Cir. 2012); Hoover v.
    U.S. Dep't of Interior, 
    611 F.2d 1132
    , 1142 (5th Cir. 1980).
    This is a road we need not travel.       To the extent that we
    might similarly recognize a narrow waiver doctrine in the FOIA
    context, it would not apply in this case.            Even assuming that
    Stalcup could show a scintilla of support for his claim, he still
    fails to connect the requested materials to the alleged government
    misconduct.    Courts that have adopted such a waiver in the FOIA
    milieu also require a party to establish a nexus between the
    -13-
    misconduct and the requested documents. See Judicial Watch of Fla.
    v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 
    102 F. Supp. 2d 6
    , 15 (D.D.C. 2000).
    This is a sound way to avoid a litigant's mere fishing expedition
    into government action.     Stalcup's silence as to how the requested
    documents would shed any new light on the alleged misconduct is
    fatal to his claim.
    Ultimately, the CIA properly withheld the materials under
    exemption 5.     Both documents are deliberative and predecisional in
    nature, and any misconduct waiver would be inapplicable.
    B.    Exemption 7(C): The Law Enforcement Exemption
    In addition to the two documents, Stalcup seeks the names
    of   the   eyewitnesses   interviewed    by   the   FBI   as    part   of   the
    investigation.    Although the CIA withheld the names under multiple
    exemptions -- it asserted that exemption 6 protecting "personnel
    and medical files" would also apply -- the parties and the district
    court correctly focused on exemption 7(C).            See U.S. Dep't of
    Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 
    489 U.S. 749
    ,
    756 (1989) (noting that the protections of 7(C) are more extensive
    than those of 6).    Exemption 7(C) shields information compiled for
    law enforcement purposes when the release of such records "could
    reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of
    personal privacy."        5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C).             That analysis
    requires a court to balance the relevant public and private
    -14-
    interests implicated by disclosure.            Maynard v. CIA, 
    986 F.2d 547
    ,
    566 (1st Cir. 1993).
    Stalcup     asserts      that       the    eyewitnesses         have    an
    insignificant privacy interest.          Generally, he says, the names of
    witnesses to crimes or accidents are made public and, therefore,
    the   eyewitnesses    in   this    investigation       should   be    treated     no
    differently.       Since   the    NTSB   had    the   authority      to    call   the
    witnesses to testify, he adds, the witnesses have a reduced
    expectation of anonymity.
    This argument ignores the Supreme Court's observation
    that an individual's privacy interest is "at its apex" when he or
    she is involved in a law enforcement investigation.                   
    Favish, 541 U.S. at 166
    (citation omitted).            Indeed, as we have said before,
    "[t]his Court has long protected the identities of witnesses and
    informants in law enforcement records," even when the individual is
    not the subject of the investigation.            
    Carpenter, 470 F.3d at 439
    .
    The other aspect of this argument, that the NTSB's
    subpoena   power     minimized     the     privacy     interest,      is    equally
    unavailing.    It mistakenly assumes that the mere possibility of
    being called as a witness is somehow equivalent to an individual
    voluntarily abdicating his or her privacy.                 Stalcup offers no
    authority supporting that position.            Moreover, even assuming that
    a witness had been required to testify, that does not necessarily
    diminish his or her privacy interest.                 
    Moffat, 716 F.3d at 251
    -15-
    (stating that "prior revelations of exempt information do not
    destroy an individual's privacy interest").
    Gaining no traction there, Stalcup turns to United States
    v. Weber Aircraft Corp., 
    465 U.S. 797
    (1984).                In Weber, the
    Supreme Court noted that the government provided the witnesses a
    guarantee that their testimony would not be released outside of the
    relevant investigation. 
    Weber, 465 U.S. at 797
    n.11. In Stalcup's
    view,   this   guarantee    of   confidentiality   greatly    enhanced    the
    privacy interests at stake.         He then posits that, absent such a
    promise in this case, no significant privacy interest can be
    established.
    Even if the cited footnote in Weber had been central to
    the Court's analysis (it was not, because Weber was an exemption 5
    case), Stalcup's inversion of the proposition is a textbook logical
    fallacy.   More fundamentally, it is based on a faulty assumption.
    The   argument   presumes    that   individuals    start   with   a   minimal
    threshold of privacy and gain more through government action.            Not
    only is there an absence of authority supporting that proposition,
    it ignores an individual's inherent privacy interest irrespective
    of any government intervention.         See 
    Carpenter, 470 F.3d at 438
    (emphasizing the broad nature of the privacy interest covered by
    exemption 7(C)).
    Finally, relying on the testimony of a single witness who
    felt "intimidated" from speaking out, Stalcup asserts that the
    -16-
    eyewitnesses in this case actually wish to go public with their
    observations.      He claims that the CIA has either destroyed their
    credibility or threatened retaliation if they come forward.                      He
    thus distinguishes this case from one such as Forest Serivce
    Employees for Environmental Ethics v. U.S. Forest Service, 
    524 F.3d 1021
    (9th Cir. 2008), in which the witnesses' decision to remain
    silent for years indicated a desire to remain private.
    Although      the    district     court     is   required    to   make
    inferences in favor of the non-moving party at summary judgment, it
    is only required to do so if the inference asserted is reasonable.
    Mulero-Rodriguez v. Ponte, Inc., 
    98 F.3d 670
    , 672 (1st Cir. 1996).
    The inference here requires a leap that is simply not justified by
    the   evidence   in    this    record.       Even    crediting    the   testimony
    regarding intimidation, that provides no basis to conclude that the
    government also "intimidated" 243 other eyewitnesses or, more
    benignly, that those witnesses had a desire to discuss the case.
    Although this single witness may wish to speak about the crash, as
    far as we know, the remainder may prefer to remain private.
    Given      that    some   privacy    interest     is   at    stake,   a
    significant public interest must be present to nevertheless warrant
    disclosure of the witnesses' names.                 
    Favish, 541 U.S. at 172
    .
    Here, again, Stalcup relies on the perceived cover-up as the core
    of the relevant public interest.           The problem for Stalcup is that
    he fails to show how providing him the names -- thus permitting him
    -17-
    to   further   interview         the   witnesses    --    would      yield   any     new
    information.    That gap prevents us from concluding that release
    would further his purported public interest.                        Thus, given the
    presence of a privacy interest, and the complete absence of any
    public benefit, the balance between the two unquestionably banks
    against    release.        The    district      court    correctly     reached     this
    conclusion.
    C.    A Final Note: The CIA's Search for the Records
    We can quickly dispose of Stalcup's final contention. He
    asserts that the CIA failed to conduct a reasonable search after he
    sent his FOIA request, and should now be required to do more.                           He
    raises two points.
    First,    in    a    press   release,       the   FBI    referred      to   a
    photograph captured by an eyewitness and later analyzed by the
    National Imagery and Mapping Administration.                   The CIA, however,
    never   produced     this    image.        This    failure,    Stalcup       says,      is
    emblematic of the CIA's handling of his FOIA request.
    Second, he posits that the CIA only searched one of the
    several     departments,          called        "directorates,"        within        the
    organization.      He speculates that the work must have been done
    across the agency, particularly at the director level.                          In his
    view, this by itself renders the search inadequate.
    Resolution of this claim turns on whether the agency made
    a good faith, reasonable effort "using methods which can be
    -18-
    reasonably expected to produce the information requested." Oglesby
    v. U.S. Dep't of the Army, 
    920 F.2d 57
    , 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990).            After
    an agency shows that it acted accordingly, which is generally
    accomplished through an affidavit, a rebuttable presumption that
    the agency acted in good faith emerges.          
    Maynard, 986 F.2d at 560
    .
    Robert Roland, the Information Review Officer of the
    CIA's Directorate of Intelligence, provided extensive detail on how
    the agency conducted its search.            He also cogently explained why
    the CIA believed that a lone department, the directorate of
    intelligence, would house the responsive records.            His declaration
    provided a reasonable explanation for the agency's process and, at
    a bare minimum, created a presumption that the CIA acted in good
    faith.
    Stalcup's attempt to rebut that presumption goes nowhere.
    The absence of the single photograph (one, it should be noted, that
    was analyzed by an agency within the Department of Defense and not
    the CIA) does not warrant reversal.             The omission of a single
    document   in   this   case   does   not     negate   what   is   otherwise   a
    reasonable inquiry.     See Iturralde v. Comptroller of the Currency,
    
    315 F.3d 311
    , 315 (D.C. Cir. 2003).           Consistent with its approach
    to the other issues in this case, the CIA handled the search in the
    required manner.
    -19-
    IV.
    Finding the district court's conclusion to be fully
    supported, we affirm its order granting the CIA's motion for
    summary judgment.
    -20-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-2329

Citation Numbers: 768 F.3d 65

Filed Date: 10/6/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023

Authorities (19)

United States v. Carpenter , 470 F.3d 434 ( 2006 )

Beatrice Maynard v. Central Intelligence Agency, Beatrice ... , 986 F.2d 547 ( 1993 )

Providence Journal Company and Gerald M. Carbone v. United ... , 981 F.2d 552 ( 1992 )

Texaco Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Department of Consumer Affairs , 60 F.3d 867 ( 1995 )

Town of Norfolk and Town of Walpole v. United States Army ... , 968 F.2d 1438 ( 1992 )

72-fair-emplpraccas-bna-406-69-empl-prac-dec-p-44437-gilberto , 98 F.3d 670 ( 1996 )

GUILLERMO FELIPE DUEÑAS ITURRALDE v. COMPTROLLER OF THE ... , 315 F.3d 311 ( 2003 )

Carl Oglesby v. The United States Department of the Army , 920 F.2d 57 ( 1990 )

Enviro Tech International, Inc. v. United States ... , 371 F.3d 370 ( 2004 )

Petroleum Information Corporation v. United States ... , 976 F.2d 1429 ( 1992 )

Lahr v. National Transportation Safety Board , 569 F.3d 964 ( 2009 )

Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics v. United ... , 524 F.3d 1021 ( 2008 )

Harry E. Hoover v. The United States Department of the ... , 611 F.2d 1132 ( 1980 )

Judicial Watch of Florida, Inc. v. United States Department ... , 102 F. Supp. 2d 6 ( 2000 )

Environmental Protection Agency v. Mink , 93 S. Ct. 827 ( 1973 )

National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 95 S. Ct. 1504 ( 1975 )

Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Abramson , 102 S. Ct. 2054 ( 1982 )

United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee ... , 109 S. Ct. 1468 ( 1989 )

National Archives & Records Administration v. Favish , 124 S. Ct. 1570 ( 2004 )

View All Authorities »