Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03759/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03759-18/pdf.json

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

THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES 

UNION OF NORTH CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 10-cv-03759-RS 

ORDER REGARDING CROSSMOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, the Asian Law 

Caucus, and the San Francisco Bay Guardian filed this action, averring that the Federal Bureau of 

Investigations has improperly withheld or redacted documents in violation of the Freedom of 

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2012). In 2010, the Plaintiffs filed two FOIA requests, seeking 

documents relating to the FBI’s alleged surveillance activities of Muslim and other ethnic and 

racial groups in Northern California. The FBI has produced responsive documents and an index 

describing the documents withheld or redacted and explaining why the documents are not subject 

to disclosure. 

Having failed to demonstrate that 5 U.S.C. § 522(b)(7)—Exemption 7—justifies 

withholding and redaction of the documents that Plaintiffs seek, the FBI now asserts that it has 

properly withheld and redacted documents pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 522(b)(5) (Exemption 5). That 

Case 3:10-cv-03759-RS Document 152 Filed 11/17/15 Page 1 of 10
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

exemption shields from disclosure documents and information covered by the attorney-client and 

deliberative-process privileges. Lahr v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964, 979 (9th Cir. 

2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (deliberative-process privilege); see also NLRB v. Sears, 

Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 154 (1975) (attorney-client privilege). Plaintiffs contest the 

applicability of Exemption 5 to three categories of documents: Human Source Advisory Notices, 

Frequently Asked Questions for Threat Assessments, and Draft Training FAQs. At issue now is 

(1) whether attorney-client privilege relieves the FBI of its obligation to produce the Human 

Source Advisory Notices; (2) whether attorney-client privilege applies to the entirety of the FAQs 

for Threat Assessments, or whether portions can be redacted; and (3) whether the deliberativeprocess privilege exempts from production the draft training FAQs. After the hearing, the FBI 

submitted the Human Source Advisory Notices for in camera review.

In general, the Human Source Advisory Notices do not contain communications protected 

by attorney-client privilege with one exception. One email dated November 26, 2003,1contains 

detailed communications about an ongoing investigation, rather than generalized policy 

statements. Accordingly, Exception 5 exempts from disclosure the redacted portion of that email. 

The FBI’s evidence is insufficiently specific to determine that attorney-client privilege applies to 

the withheld or redacted information, and therefore the FBI has not established that the FAQs are 

exempt from disclosure. Because the FBI has conceded that the draft training FAQs were not 

predecisional and has not demonstrated that disclosure of the document would discourage frank 

deliberation, the FBI may not use the deliberative-process privilege to withhold the draft training 

FAQs.

II. BACKGROUND

Upon hearing reports that the FBI had been surveilling certain ethnic and religious 

communities in Northern California, Plaintiffs became concerned that the FBI’s practices were 

impacting the civil liberties of those groups’ members. In order to assess the impact of the FBI’s 

surveillance practices on the civil liberties of the targeted groups, Plaintiffs filed two FOIA 

 

1

The document is Bates-stamped “MC-1396.”

Case 3:10-cv-03759-RS Document 152 Filed 11/17/15 Page 2 of 10
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

requests with the FBI. The first request sought records pertaining to the FBI’s policies and 

practices as to the use of informants; assessment practices; legal justifications for the 

investigations and assessments; training materials regarding Islam, Muslim culture, and Muslim, 

Arab, South Asian, and Middle Eastern communities; use of race, religion, ethnicity, language, or 

national origin for law-enforcement purposes; the FBI Citizenship Academy; the FBI Junior Agent 

Program; and domain management. Plaintiffs also requested records concerning the FBI’s 

investigation of mosques, Islamic centers, Muslim community centers, mosque members, Muslim 

leaders, and imams; and the targets and outcomes of law-enforcement activity in Northern 

California in comparison with the rest of the country. 

Later, Plaintiffs filed a second FOIA request, seeking records pertaining to the FBI’s 

attempts to map racial and ethnic demographics, behaviors, and lifestyle characteristics. Included 

among the FBI’s policies and procedures that Plaintiffs sought were those regarding the type of 

racial and ethnic information the FBI can collect; the collection of information and mapping of 

ethnic businesses or facilities; the behavioral characteristics that the Domestic Investigations and 

Operations Guide (“DIOG”) classifies as “associated with a particular criminal or terrorist element 

of an ethnic community”; and how the FBI used the collected racial and ethnic data. Plaintiffs 

also demanded information about the data that the FBI collected and the maps that the FBI 

created; the number of communities in Northern California that the FBI targeted; and descriptions 

of the maps of Northern-Californian racial and ethnic communities. 

The FBI did not produce the documents requested initially within the time period 

prescribed by statute, and so Plaintiffs commenced this action. When the FBI did not disclose the 

documents sought in Plaintiffs’ second FOIA request, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to 

incorporate a second FOIA claim. The parties mediated with the assistance of a magistrate judge 

and agreed on a production schedule for the release of the remaining responsive documents. Since 

that time, the FBI has released over 50,000 full or redacted pages of responsive records and 

withheld approximately 47,794 records on the ground that those records are exempt from FOIA’s 

production requirements. To facilitate litigation about the applicability of the FOIA exemptions, 

the parties agreed to provide Plaintiffs with descriptions of the withheld responsive documents and 

Case 3:10-cv-03759-RS Document 152 Filed 11/17/15 Page 3 of 10
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

detailed justifications for the application of the exemption. See Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 

826-28 (D.C. Cir. 1973).

After Plaintiffs reviewed the FBI’s Vaughn indexes, they agreed not to challenge the FBI’s 

application of Exemptions 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9, but reserved the right to challenge other exemptions 

and the adequacy of the FBI’s Vaughn write-ups. The parties filed cross motions for summary 

judgment regarding the propriety of the FBI’s decision to withhold certain documents; the 

sufficiency of the FBI’s descriptions of the withheld and redacted materials; and the adequacy of 

the FBI’s explanations for withholding and redacting certain materials under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) 

(“Exemption 7”). In March 2015, this Court agreed with Plaintiffs: the FBI may no longer 

employ Exemption 7 to withhold documents because the FBI has not demonstrated that there is a 

“rational nexus” between the particular documents withheld and the FBI’s law-enforcement 

activities. 

Following the order regarding Exemption 7, the FBI filed a supplemental brief in support 

of summary judgment, asserting that Exemptions 2 and 5 apply to certain information and 

documents. 5 U.S.C. § 522(b)(2) (“Exemption 2), exempts from disclosure “matters that are . . . 

related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency,” and therefore permits the 

withholding of the minimum passing test scores required in order for FBI employees to pass two 

internal web-based tests. Plaintiffs do not contest the applicability of Exemption 2 to these 

materials. Further, at this juncture, Plaintiffs do not challenge the FBI’s redaction of portions of 

the Electronic Communication on Intelligence Oversight Board Matters, but reserves the right to 

challenge the redactions to this document after the FBI produces it. Pls.’ Resp. to FBI’s Suppl. Br. 

at 9. The sole issue presently pending therefore is whether Exemption 5 applies to three categories 

of documents and redactions: Human Source Advisory Notices; Frequently Asked Questions for 

Threat Assessments, and Draft Training FAQs. Both parties move for summary judgment on that 

question.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to 

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

Case 3:10-cv-03759-RS Document 152 Filed 11/17/15 Page 4 of 10
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

The parties do not claim that there is a dispute of material fact, as is often true in FOIA cases. See 

Minier v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 88 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir. 1996). To determine which party 

is entitled to summary judgment, the first step is to determine whether the FBI has met its burden 

of showing that it has discharged fully its FOIA obligations. Shannan v. I.R.S., 637 F. Supp. 2d 

902, 912 (W.D. Wash. 2009). Next, the FBI has the burden of demonstrating that the undisclosed 

information falls within one of the nine FOIA exemptions. Id. The final step is to determine 

whether the FBI 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). At this juncture, Plaintiffs do not 

dispute that the FBI has discharged adequately its FOIA obligations, nor do the parties address the 

segregability questions. Their dispute is therefore limited to whether the FBI’s invocation of 

Exemption 5 is proper.

“FOIA ‘was enacted to facilitate public access to Government documents.’” Lahr, 569 

F.3d at 973 (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).

IV. DISCUSSION

FOIA does not require that the FBI 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 Sears, 421 U.S. at 154 (attorney-client 

privilege). 

A. Attorney-Client Privilege

“The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications from clients to their 

Case 3:10-cv-03759-RS Document 152 Filed 11/17/15 Page 5 of 10
6

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

attorneys made for the purpose of securing legal advice or services” and “communications from 

attorneys to their clients” to the extent that “the communications rest on confidential information 

obtained from the client.” Tax Analysts v. Internal Revenue Servs., 117 F.3d 607, 618 (D.C. Cir. 

1997) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Thus, between FBI officials and the 

Bureau’s lawyers communications are privileged if they contain information communicated by the

attorney in confidence for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, the attorney was acting in her 

capacity as a lawyer, the communications were related to the purpose of obtaining legal advice, 

and the FBI did not waive attorney-client protection. See United States v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600, 

607 (9th Cir. 2009). “The privilege does not exempt a document from disclosure simply because 

the communication involves the government’s counsel.” Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Dep’t of 

Justice, 584 F. Supp. 2d 65, 79 (D.D.C. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The privilege 

protects only those disclosures necessary to obtain informed legal advice which might not have 

been made absent the privilege” and “confidential information that involves or is about that 

client.” Id. at 79.

1. Human Source Advisory Notices

The FBI has produced Human Source Advisory Notices with significant redactions that 

render the documents unreadable. See R. 141-1, Kleine Decl. Ex. A. According to these 

documents, the FBI distributes these advisory notices to numerous FBI listservs and “investigative 

and administrative personnel.” Id. at 5. There are two parts to each advisory notice: a notice 

section and a policy section. See, e.g., id. at 18. For the most part, the substance of both of these 

sections is redacted. In the Vaughn index, the FBI explains that the redacted portions “contain[] 

specific legal and procedural advice, including approval levels and requirements, interpretation of 

law, source coordination and liaison with other agencies, and information on specific operational 

techniques for operating sources—which are currently used in cases today.” R. 139-1 at 5, 2d 

Suppl. Hardy Decl. Ex. II. The FBI contends that the advisory notices include “scenarios” that 

“stem[] from questions raised to FBI Counsel on actual cases as to when particular investigative 

techniques should be utilized.” Id. After the hearing on this matter, the FBI submitted unredacted 

copies of the Human Advisory Notices for in camera review.

Case 3:10-cv-03759-RS Document 152 Filed 11/17/15 Page 6 of 10
7

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

The bulk of the redacted portions of the Human Advisory Notices do not include 

communications to the FBI’s attorneys “for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion 

on law or (ii) legal services or (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding.” In re Grand Jury, 475 

F.3d 1299, 1304 (D.C.Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). The notice section of the

Advisory Notices contains a short description of a situation agents may encounter in the field. The 

descriptions are general and lack any specific information. The policy section provides a citation 

to an FBI policy and brief analysis applying the language of the policy to the situation described in 

the notice section. While the FBI attests that the substance of the Advisory Notices “stem[] from 

questions raised to FBI Counsel,” the Advisory Notices “are more akin to a ‘resource’ opinion 

about the applicability of existing policy to a certain state of facts, like examples in a manual, to be 

contrasted to a factual or strategic advice giving opinion.” Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep’t of 

Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 868 (D.C. Cir. 1980). 

Only page MC-1396 of the submitted materials falls into the category of attorney-client 

privileged communications. Unlike the generic descriptions in the Human Advisory Notices, this 

email contains details about an asset, the assets location, and the reason for the communication. 

This email is less like a resource opinion and contains fact-specific advice and communications, 

and therefore Exemption 5 excludes from disclosure the redacted portions of the email.

Second, with the exception of page MC-1396, the FBI has not submitted evidence that 

substantiates its claim that the communications were confidential in fact. Indeed, the wide 

distribution of the Advisory Notices to all administrative and investigative personnel implies the 

contrary. See Nat’l Sec. Counselors, 960 F. Supp. 2d at 194. Moreover, “[w]here a client is an 

organization, including a government organization, the privilege extends ‘no further than among 

those members of the organization who are authorized to speak or act for the organization in 

relation to the subject matter of the communication.’” Shurtleff v. United States Envtl. Prot. 

Agency, 991 F. Supp. 2d 1, 16 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep’t of 

Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 863 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). The FBI has not submitted evidence to establish 

that the people who received the Advisory Notices were authorized to speak or act on behalf of the 

FBI.

Case 3:10-cv-03759-RS Document 152 Filed 11/17/15 Page 7 of 10
8

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

The FBI has failed to establish, with the exception cited above, that the redacted portions 

of the Advisory Notices include attorney-client-privileged information. Accordingly, the FBI’s 

motion for summary judgment is denied. The FBI shall produce unredacted copies of the Human 

Advisory Notices except document MC-1396.

2. FAQ for Threat Assessments

The FBI has withheld entirely the FAQs for Threat Assessments. According to the FBI, 

the FAQs advise FBI personnel about how to apply FBI policy to threat assessments. To justify 

withholding the FAQs, the FBI states that these FAQs “encompass opinions given by” and 

“consist[] of specific policy and procedural applications, advice, and guidance vetted through 

and/or from” the FBI attorneys to FBI employees. R. 139-1 at 19, 2d Suppl. Hardy Decl. Ex. II. 

The remainder of the entry in the Vaughn index concerning the FAQs merely defines attorneyclient privilege and asserts without more that it applies to this information without citing specific 

facts. See id. at 19-20.

The FBI has failed to establish that attorney-client privilege shields the entirety of the 

FAQs from disclosure for many of the same reasons the FBI failed to carry its burden with respect 

to the redacted portions of the Advisory Notices. First, the FBI’s evidence does not substantiate 

the need to withhold the FAQs in their entirety because some portions of the document do not 

appear to contain legal advice or confidential communications. Second, the FBI has not provided 

sufficient information to determine whether the FAQs consist of advice about specific legal 

questions and situations, or whether they clarify broadly applicable FBI policies. Finally, the FBI 

has not provided information about who receives the FAQs and whether the recipients are 

authorized to speak and act on behalf of the FBI. Thus, the FBI must produce the segregable 

portions of the FAQs or provide more information about which portions contain attorney-clientprivileged information.

B. Deliberative-Process Privilege

The final document at issue is the FBI’s draft training FAQs, which the FBI asserts is 

shielded from disclosure by the deliberative-process privilege. That privilege shields from 

disclosure “documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations 

Case 3:10-cv-03759-RS Document 152 Filed 11/17/15 Page 8 of 10
9

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

comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.” 

Dep’t of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 8 (2001) (internal

quotation marks omitted). To fall within the ambit of the deliberative-process privilege, the FBI 

must demonstrate that the document is both “predecisional” and “deliberative.” Lahr, 569 F.3d at 

979. “A document is predecisional if it was prepared in order to assist an agency decisionmaker in 

arriving at his decision, rather than to support a decision already made.” Petroleum Info. Corp. v. 

U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 976 F.2d 1429, 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Documents that “reflect[] the give-and-take of the consultative process” are deliberative. Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted). Because the purpose of the privilege is to “protect[] open and 

frank discussion among” employees of an agency who make decisions, Klamath Water, 532 U.S. 

at 9, “the key question in Exemption 5 cases is whether the disclosure of materials would expose 

an agency’s decision-making process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the 

agency and thereby undermine the agency’s ability to perform its functions,” Carter v. U.S. Dep’t 

of Commerce, 307 F.3d 1084, 1090 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and alteration 

omitted). 

According to the FBI, the draft FAQ exists in electronic form and consists of redline 

comments concerning the substance and format of the document. R. 139 at 6, 2d Suppl. Hardy 

Decl. ¶ 11. David Hardy, the FBI’s Record/Information Dissemination Section Chief, attests that 

the FBI could not locate a “final” version of the document. Id. Hardy asserts in conclusory 

fashion that the document “reflects the give-and-take process” and would chill future drafters of 

similar documents from offering comments about the substance and format of the document. See 

id. The FBI has not, however, offered specific, non-conclusory information about how the 

drafters’ comments contributed or informed the decisionmaking process. More importantly, the 

FBI concedes that the redline comments do not reflect debate about which policies apply or should 

be adopted. FBI Reply Br. at 3. Instead, the FBI contends that the document is deliberative 

because the redline comments reflect debate about “how to instruct or convey” the policies to FBI 

special agents. Id. In other words, the FBI asserts that it has decided what to say, just not how to 

say it. 

Case 3:10-cv-03759-RS Document 152 Filed 11/17/15 Page 9 of 10
10

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

The deliberative-process privilege does apply, however, to documents that “explain[] . . . a 

decision already reached or a policy already adopted.” Sears, 421 U.S. at 153 n.19. The FBI has 

not contended that the draft FAQs include such quintessentially deliberative content as advice 

about whether to adopt or reject a policy. Nothing in the FBI’s evidence suggests that advice 

about whether a comma should be inserted, word choice, or phrasing would discourage members 

of the Bureau from providing candid advice about the pros and cons of adopting a policy or 

practice. Thus, the FBI has all but admitted that the document reflects a policy it has adopted, and 

therefore constitutes the FBI’s “working law.” See id. at 152-53. “Working law” is not exempt 

from disclosure. Id. The FBI must therefore produce the draft FAQs. 

V. CONCLUSION

The FBI has not carried its burden to demonstrate that Exemption 5 justifies redactions of 

the Human Source Advisory Notices, or the complete withholding of the FAQs for Threat 

Assessments and the draft training FAQs. Accordingly, the FBI has thirty (30) days from the date 

of this order to produce unredacted copies of the Human Advisory Notices, the FAQs for Threat 

Assessments and draft training FAQs. The redacted portions of page MC-1396 are exempt from 

disclosure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2015

________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-03759-RS Document 152 Filed 11/17/15 Page 10 of 10