Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03010/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03010-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELECTRONIC FRONTIER 

FOUNDATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03010-RS 

ORDER RE CROSS MOTIONS FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) brought this action under the Freedom of 

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2012) (“FOIA”) to obtain documents relating to the National 

Security Agency’s development and implementation of the so-called “Vulnerabilities Equity 

Process”—a set of protocols and principles used by the government in deciding whether and when 

to disclose computer security flaws. By the time the parties presented their cross-motions for 

summary judgment, only a single document remained in dispute. That document is entitled, 

“Commercial and Government Information Technology and Industrial Control Product or System

Vulnerabilities Equities Policy and Process” (“the VEP Document”). It was produced by the 

government to EFF in this litigation, with certain redactions. Although the government lifted 

some of the redactions during the course of this motion practice, EFF contends the remaining 

redactions should also be removed. 

Case 3:14-cv-03010-RS Document 41 Filed 03/17/16 Page 1 of 5
CASE NO. 14-cv-03010-RS

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

At EFF’s urging, the Court has reviewed the VEP Document in camera.1 For the reasons 

set out below, the remaining redactions protect information that is exempt from disclosure under 

FOIA. Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary judgment will be granted, and EFF’s 

cross-motion denied.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“FOIA ‘was enacted to facilitate public access to Government documents.’” Lahr v. Nat’l 

Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964, 973 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting U.S. Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 

U.S. 164, 173 (1991)). Congress designed FOIA “to pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and 

open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.” Ray, 502 U.S. at 173 (internal quotation marks 

omitted). Consequently, there is a “strong presumption in favor of disclosure,” id., and 

“exemptions should be interpreted narrowly,” Lahr, 569 F.3d at 973 (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

“Summary judgment is the procedural vehicle by which nearly all FOIA cases are 

resolved.” Los Angeles Times Commc’ns, LLC v. Dep’t of the Army, 442 F.Supp.2d 880, 893 

(C.D.Cal.2006). The usual summary judgment standard does not extend to FOIA cases because 

the facts are rarely in dispute and courts generally need not resolve whether there is a genuine 

issue of material fact. Minier v. Cent. Intel. Agency, 88 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir.1996).

In cases such as this, the task of the court is to determine whether any requested documents 

(or portions thereof) that have been withheld fall within the claimed exemptions, based on a 

Vaughn index, the accompanying declarations, and in some instances an in camera review. 

 

1

 EFF argued that in camera review was particularly appropriate and necessary in this instance 

because, in its view, the government’s declarations should be viewed with distrust, given the 

overbreadth of the original redactions to the VEP document. Whether or not the government may 

have initially made some redactions without an adequate basis to do so, there is no indication of 

bad faith or even of recklessness, and the process by which the government reconsiders its 

position in light of a FOIA plaintiff’s arguments is one that should not be penalized. Accordingly, 

while in camera review of the VEP document ultimately appeared appropriate under all the 

circumstances, it was not motivated by any specific distrust of the government’s declarations.

Case 3:14-cv-03010-RS Document 41 Filed 03/17/16 Page 2 of 5
CASE NO. 14-cv-03010-RS

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Schiffer v. F.B.I., 78 F.3d 1405, 1409 (9th Cir. 1996). The court must also examine whether the 

government has satisfied its burden of establishing that “all reasonable segregable portions of the 

document[s] have been segregated and disclosed.” Pac. Fisheries, Inc. v. United States, 539 F.3d 

1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2008); 5 U.S.C. § 522(a)(4)(B), (b). In this instance, prior to the hearing the 

court had reviewed in camera a partially-classified declaration describing the grounds on which 

redactions had been made to the VEP document. At EFF’s urging, and without objection from the 

government, the court subsequently conducted an in camera review of the complete classified 

VEP document.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Exemptions 1 and 3

Much of the redacted material in the VEP document has been withheld under Exemptions 

1 and or 3 of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1) and (3), which relate to classified information and other 

sensitive intelligence materials. The issue in this case is not whether the withheld information 

ordinarily would fall within the scope of these exemptions, but whether the government has lost 

the right to claim the exemptions as the result of prior official public disclosures of the same basic 

information.

When information has been “officially acknowledged,” its disclosure may be compelled 

even over the government’s otherwise valid exemption claim. Fitzgibbon v. C.I.A., 911 F.2d 755, 

765 (D.C. Cir. 1990). To be “officially acknowledged,” however, the information requested must 

(1) be as specific as the information previously released, (2) “match” the information previously 

disclosed, and (3) have been made public through an official and documented disclosure. Id. 

Here, EFF (like most FOIA plaintiffs) is operating at the disadvantage of not knowing with 

certainty what information lies beneath the redactions in the VEP document. Based on context, 

EFF has constructed an argument that the withheld information likely matches and is of equivalent 

specificity to certain prior official disclosures. Although EFF’s speculation was not necessarily 

unreasonable given what it could view in the VEP document, in camera review of the classified 

Case 3:14-cv-03010-RS Document 41 Filed 03/17/16 Page 3 of 5
CASE NO. 14-cv-03010-RS

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

declaration, subsequently confirmed by in camera review of the entire VEP document itself, 

established that the redacted information has not been previously “officially acknowledged” or 

disclosed such that the exemptions may no longer be claimed.2

B. Exemption 5

FOIA does not require the government to disclose “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. § 522(b)(5). “Exemption 5 shields those documents, and 

only those documents, normally privileged in the civil discovery context,” including documents 

covered by attorney-client and deliberative-process privileges. Lahr, 569 F.3d at 979 (internal 

quotation marks omitted) (deliberative-process privilege); see also NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & 

Co., 421 U.S. 132, 154 (1975) (attorney-client privilege).

The applicability of Exemption 5 is in dispute as to two categories of information. First, 

the government has redacted “header” information on the VEP document. EFF argues that even if 

the header information reflects or includes pre-decisional recommendations, upon adoption of the 

VEP document, it is no longer protected. See N. L. R. B. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 

161 (1975) (“[I]f an agency chooses expressly to adopt or incorporate by reference an intra-agency 

memorandum previously covered by Exemption 5 in what would otherwise be a final opinion, that 

memorandum may be withheld only on the ground that it falls within the coverage of some 

exemption other than Exemption 5.”). EFF is not wrong to consider the header as roughly 

analogous to a separate pre-decisional memorandum containing recommendations regarding the 

VEP document. As such, however, it does not lose its protection merely because the VEP 

document was adopted as a final policy. As stated in Sears:

 

2

 Plaintiffs correctly observe the test does not require “absolute identity” between the withheld 

information and the prior official public disclosure. See New York Times Co. v. Dep’t of Justice, 

756 F.3d. 100, 120 (2d Cir. 2014). Nevertheless, the differences in detail and substance here go

beyond what would preclude continued reliance on the exemptions under New York Times.

Case 3:14-cv-03010-RS Document 41 Filed 03/17/16 Page 4 of 5
CASE NO. 14-cv-03010-RS

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Exemption 5, properly construed, calls for disclosure of all opinions 

and interpretations which embody the agency’s effective law and 

policy, and the withholding of all papers which reflect the agency’s 

group thinking in the process of working out its policy and 

determining what its law shall be.

421 U.S. at 153 (quotation marks and citations omitted).

The header here is not an embodiment of the Vulnerabilities Equity Process, but a 

reflection of the “group thinking” involved in “working out” what that policy would be—a policy 

then expressed and embodied in the balance of the VEP document. Had the contents of the header 

been stated on a separate cover memo stapled to the VEP document as it circulated prior to 

adoption, there would be no dispute that Exemption 5 applied. The fact that it was printed on the 

top of each page instead does not change the substance of the analysis.

Finally, EFF argues the government may not withhold the names of “small government 

components” mentioned in the VEP document. Although the question is close, under the 

particular circumstances here, the government’s contention that disclosure of those names would 

implicate the deliberate process is persuasive. See, Wolfe v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 839 

F.2d 768, 774 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (“In some circumstances, even material that could be characterized 

as ‘factual’ would so expose the deliberative process that it must be covered by the privilege.”)

IV. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing discussion, the government’s motion for summary judgment is 

granted, and EFF’s cross-motion is denied. Within 20 days the government shall submit a 

proposed final judgment, approved as to form by EFF.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2016

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03010-RS Document 41 Filed 03/17/16 Page 5 of 5