Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca2-15-03122/USCOURTS-ca2-15-03122-0/pdf.json

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

---

1	

15-2956-cv(L) 

American Civil Liberties Union v. United States Department of Justice 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

August Term 2016 

Argued: October 25, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016 

Docket Nos. 15-2956(L), 15-3122(XAP) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

1	 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL 

2	 LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, 

3	

4	 Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, 

5	

6	 v. 

7	

8	 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, including 

9	 its component the Office of Legal Counsel, UNITED 

10	 STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, including its 

11	 component U.S. Special Operations Command, CENTRAL 

12	 INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, 

13	

14	 Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

15	

16	 Before: NEWMAN, CABRANES, and POOLER, Circuit Judges. 

17	

18	 Appeal and cross-appeal from the July 23, 2015, 

19	 judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of 

20	 New York (Colleen McMahon, now-Chief Judge) in a case 

21	 brought under the Freedom of Information Act. The judgment 

22	 granted in part and denied in part disclosure of documents 

23	 sought from the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department 

Case 15-3122, Document 166-1, 12/20/2016, 1931481, Page1 of 17
2	

1	 of Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the 

2	 Department of Defense concerning drone strikes. 

3	 Affirmed on the appeal, reversed on the cross-appeal, 

4	 and remanded for entry of a revised judgment. 

5	

6	 Brett Max Kaufman, New York, NY 

7	 (Jameel Jaffer, Hina Shamsi, 

8	 Matthew Spurlock, American Civil 

9	 Liberties Union Foundation, New 

10	 York, NY, Colin Wicker, Dorsey & 

11	 Whitney LLP, Minneapolis, MN, on 

12	 the brief), for Plaintiffs13	 Appellants-Cross-Appellees.

14	

15	 Sarah S. Normand, Asst. U.S. Atty., 

16	 New York, NY (Preet Bharara, 

17	 U.S. Atty., New York, NY, 

18	 Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 

19	 Deputy Asst. Atty. General, 

20	 Matthew M. Collette, Sharon 

21	 Swingle, Civil Division, U.S. 

22	 Dep’t of Justice, Washington, 

23	 DC, on the brief), for 

24	 Defendants-Appellees-Cross25	 Appellants. 

26	

27	 JON O. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge: 

28	 This is the third appellate round of a case brought 

29	 under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). The case 

30	 began in February 2012 to challenge responses to FOIA 

31	 requests made in October 2011 to the Office of Legal 

32	 Counsel (“OLC”) of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the 

33	 Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”), and the Department of 

Case 15-3122, Document 166-1, 12/20/2016, 1931481, Page2 of 17
3	

1	 Defense (“DOD”). The requests were made by the American 

2	 Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties 

3	 Foundation (collectively “ACLU”). The requests were also 

4	 made by The New York Times and two of its reporters, but 

5	 they are not parties in the pending appeal. 

6	 ACLU appeals and DOJ cross-appeals from the July 23, 

7	 2015, judgment of the District Court for the Southern 

8	 District of New York (Colleen McMahon, now-Chief Judge). 

9	 That judgment ruled that OLC, CIA, and DOD were entitled to 

10	 withhold from disclosure a number of documents concerning 

11	 drone strikes -- lethal attacks by unmanned aircraft. The 

12	 judgment also ruled that OLC must disclose all or portions 

of four documents1 13	 and CIA must disclose all or portions of 

three documents2 14	 concerning such strikes. ACLU has narrowed 

its request to 59 documents,3 15	 including the seven documents 

16	 ordered disclosed in full or in part. ACLU’s appeal 

17	 challenges the District Court’s ruling to the extent it 

18	 upheld nondisclosure of 52 documents, and the Government’s 

																																																																		

1

 OLC 46, 50, 144, and 145. 

2

 CIA 59 tab C, 109, and 113. 

3

 OLC 1, 2, 8, 9, 46, 50, 64, 65, 66, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 

83, 84, 90, 91, 95, 144, and 145; CIA 2, 3, 12, 15, 33, 34, 35, 

36, 45, 59 tab C, 61, 62, 78, 94, 95, 96, 105, 106, 107, 109, 

110, 111, 112, 113, 117, 118, 119, 120, 123, 124, 140, and 142; 

DOD 1, 31, 38, 39, 46, and 55. 

Case 15-3122, Document 166-1, 12/20/2016, 1931481, Page3 of 17
4	

1	 cross-appeal challenges the ruling to the extent it ordered 

2	 disclosure, in whole or in part, of seven documents. 

3	 We conclude that none of the 52 withheld documents must 

4	 be disclosed, and that the seven documents ordered 

5	 disclosed may also be withheld. We therefore affirm on the 

6	 appeal, reverse on the cross-appeal, and remand for entry 

7	 of a revised judgment. 

8	 Litigation history. Our first encounter with this 

9	 litigation concerned consolidated appeals from the January 

10	 24, 2013, judgment of the District Court, dismissing on 

11	 motion for summary judgment two consolidated suits, one 

12	 brought by The New York Times and two of its reporters and 

13	 another brought by ACLU. See New York Times Co. v. U.S. 

14	 Dep’t of Justice, 915 F. Supp. 2d 508 (S.D.N.Y. 2013),

15	 modified by 2013 WL 238928 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2013). On 

16	 those consolidated appeals, we ordered disclosure of a 

17	 redacted version of the “OLC-DOD Memorandum,” a 41-page 

18	 document, prepared by OLC, arguing the legal justification 

19	 for the drone strikes that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, Samir 

20	 Khan, and al-Awlaki’s son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. See New 

21	 York Times Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 756 F.3d 100, 124 

22	 (Conclusion ¶ 1) (2d Cir. 2014) (revised opinion) (“NYTimes 

Case 15-3122, Document 166-1, 12/20/2016, 1931481, Page4 of 17
5	

1	 I”). All three victims were United States citizens, either 

2	 by birth or naturalization. Pertinent to the pending 

3	 appeal, NYTimes I also ordered: 

4	 • OLC to disclose some of the titles and descriptions 

of documents listed on its Vaughn index,4 5	 id. (Conclusion 

6	 ¶ 2); 

7	 • OLC to submit various legal memoranda to the District 

8	 Court for “in camera inspection and determination of waiver 

9	 of privileges and appropriate redaction,” id. (Conclusion 

10	 ¶ 3) (italics added); and 

11	 • CIA and DOD to submit Vaughn indices to the District 

12	 Court for “in camera inspection and determination of 

13	 appropriate disclosure and appropriate redaction,” id. 

14	 (Conclusion ¶ 5). 

15	 In response to the Government’s petition for rehearing 

16	 of NYTimes I, we made a slight revision of that opinion, 

17	 made slight further redactions of the OLC-DOD Memorandum, 

18	 and permitted the Government to withhold from disclosure 

																																																																		

4 A Vaughn index is a list of documents, identified by 

number, title, and description, that a Government agency 

determines are responsive to an FOIA request. The index states 

the one or more FOIA exemptions that the agency claims justify 

withholding each document. The term derives from Vaughn v. 

Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973). 

Case 15-3122, Document 166-1, 12/20/2016, 1931481, Page5 of 17
6	

1	 the titles and descriptions of some documents listed on the 

2	 OLC Vaughn index, confirming a withholding authorized by an 

3	 order issued May 28, 2014. See New York Times Co. v. U.S. 

4	 Dep’t of Justice, 756 F.3d 97, 99 (2d Cir. 2014) (first 

5	 opinion on Government’s petition for rehearing of NYTimes 

6	 I). We also bifurcated for later decision the Government’s 

7	 request for permission to withhold from disclosure 

8	 additional titles and descriptions of documents listed on 

9	 the OLC Vaughn index. See id. at 98-99. 

10	 Later, completing our ruling on the Government’s 

11	 petition for rehearing, we permitted the Government to 

12	 withhold from disclosure the titles and descriptions of 

13	 additional documents listed on the OLC Vaughn index and the 

14	 titles of other documents listed on that index. See New 

15	 York Times Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 758 F.3d 436, 441 

16	 (2d Cir. 2014) (second opinion on Government’s petition for 

17	 rehearing of NYTimes I). We also ordered DOJ to make public 

18	 its previously classified OLC Vaughn index, as permissibly 

19	 redacted. See id. With the Government’s petition for 

20	 rehearing completely adjudicated, the District Court was 

21	 left with the task, as directed in NYTimes I, to consider 

22	 in camera whether several undisclosed OLC documents, sought 

Case 15-3122, Document 166-1, 12/20/2016, 1931481, Page6 of 17
7	

1	 in the original FOIA requests, should be disclosed. See 

2	 NYTimes I, 756 F.3d at 124 (Conclusion ¶ 3). 

3	 On remand, the District Court ruled that ten of eleven 

4	 OLC documents, identified in an affidavit of an OLC 

5	 official, could be withheld from disclosure. See No. 1:11-

6	 cv-09336-CM, Dkt. No. 52 (Oct. 31, 2014). The District 

7	 Court rejected the Government’s request to redact three 

8	 paragraphs from its opinion. See id., Dkt. No. 51. The 

9	 Court certified its rulings for immediate appeal under Rule 

10	 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. Dkt. 

11	 No. 52. 

12	 Those rulings precipitated the second appellate round 

13	 of this litigation. We ruled that the ten identified 

14	 documents could be withheld. See New York Times Co. v. U.S. 

15	 Dep’t of Justice, 806 F.3d 682, 690-91 (2d Cir. 2015) 

16	 (“NYTimes II”). We also ruled that the District Court could 

17	 make public, except for a few words, the three paragraphs 

18	 of its opinion the Government had sought to keep 

19	 undisclosed. See id. Finally, we upheld the Government’s 

20	 request to redact a small portion of the transcript of the 

21	 Government’s ex parte and in camera oral argument before 

22	 this Court. See id. 

Case 15-3122, Document 166-1, 12/20/2016, 1931481, Page7 of 17
8	

1	 NYTimes II left for the District Court the laborious 

2	 task of examining the numerous OLC, CIA, and DOD documents 

3	 that the Government claimed were exempt from disclosure. 

4	 The Government had identified the OLC documents in its OLC 

5	 Vaughn index, which was originally classified. NYTimes I

6	 ordered a redacted version of that index disclosed. 756 

7	 F.3d at 124 (Conclusion ¶ 2). The Government had identified 

8	 the CIA and DOD documents in its classified CIA and DOD 

9	 Vaughn indices. NYTimes I had ordered preparation of those 

10	 indices and their consideration by the District Court in 

11	 camera for determination of appropriate disclosure and 

12	 redaction. Id. (Conclusion ¶ 5). 

13	 Undertaking this task, the District Court examined the 

14	 documents listed on the OLC, CIA, and DOD Vaughn indices. 

15	 In a sealed unredacted draft opinion filed on May 13, 2015, 

16	 and superseded by a sealed unredacted final opinion filed 

on June 23, 2015,5 17	 the District Court required disclosure of 

18	 redacted versions of three OLC documents, OLC 46, OLC 144, 

																																																																		

5 The District Court explained in its July 17, 2015, order 

concluding the litigation that the June 23, 2015, opinion 

“completely superseded” the Court’s May 13, 2015, draft opinion. 

The July 17, 2015, order slightly amended the June 23, 2015, 

unredacted opinion and also reported that a redacted version of 

the June 23, 2015, opinion had been filed “yesterday,” i.e., 

July 16, 2015. SPA 162-64. 

Case 15-3122, Document 166-1, 12/20/2016, 1931481, Page8 of 17
9	

and OLC 145; the complete text of OLC 50;6 1	 the complete text 

2	 of Tab C to CIA 59; and redacted versions of CIA 109 and 

3	 CIA 113. See ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 12 Civ. 

4	 794(CM), 2015 WL 4470192, at *13-14, *23, *27, *39, *42-43, 

5	 *45 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2015) (redacted opinion). 

6	 In its redacted opinion, the District Court identified 

7	 six facts, Nos. 1-5 and 7, that it ruled (with one slight 

8	 qualification of No. 7 not material to this appeal) had 

9	 been officially acknowledged. See id. *4-5. The Court also 

10	 identified a seventh fact (No. 6), see id. at *5, for 

11	 consideration by this Court as to whether it had been 

12	 officially acknowledged, see id. at *6. The District Court 

13	 ruled that the six acknowledged facts must be disclosed “to 

14	 the extent that these specific facts appear in documents on 

15	 the Agencies’ Vaughn Indices and can be segregated from 

16	 other, properly exempt information.” Id. at *5. The Court 

																																																																		

6 Both the District Court’s June 23, 2015, draft opinion and 

its July 16, 2015, revised opinion identified this OLC document 

as No. 50. See SPA 58, 59. However, the District Court’s July 

17, 2015, order, recapitulating its rulings, see SPA 164, and 

the judgment, see SPA 166, identified the document as No. 150. 

The Government’s brief identified the document as No. 50. See 

Br. for Government at 60-62.

 We are satisfied that 50 is the correct number and that 150 

is a typographical error. This is clear from the description of 

the document in the District Court’s draft and revised opinion 

and the fact that there is no OLC No. 150.

Case 15-3122, Document 166-1, 12/20/2016, 1931481, Page9 of 17
10	

1	 stated that disclosure of these six facts is “[a]pplicable 

2	 to [a]ll [d]ocuments,” id. at *2, but qualified that 

3	 statement to make clear that the disclosure requirement 

4	 does not apply to any document reviewed by the Court in 

5	 camera, “because the [C]ourt took those facts into account 

6	 when reviewing the document,” id. at *15. With the 

7	 exception of the seven documents ordered to be disclosed, 

8	 the District Court ruled that all other requested documents 

9	 need not be disclosed. 

10	 With respect to the six facts, the District Court 

11	 ordered OLC, CIA, and DOD to make a “segregability review” 

12	 of each document that the Court had not reviewed in camera 

13	 and then represent either that the six facts had not been 

14	 officially acknowledged, or, if so acknowledged, that the 

15	 facts cannot reasonably be segregated from information 

16	 exempt from disclosure. See id. at *6-7. The Government 

17	 responded with classified declarations from OLC, CIA, and 

18	 DOD, which contended that segregation of all six facts 

19	 could not be made. [CSA 492, 516, 544] On July 16, 2015, 

20	 the District Court issued an order agreeing with the 

Case 15-3122, Document 166-1, 12/20/2016, 1931481, Page10 of 17
11	

1	 agencies’ contention. See No. 1:12-cv-00794-CM, Dkt. No. 

129 (July 16, 2015).7 2	 

3	 Uncertain as to the status of three documents -- CIA 

4	 61, CIA 96, and DOD 1, this Court requested the Government 

5	 to produce them ex parte for our in camera inspection. No. 

6	 15-2956, Dkt. No. 166 (2d Cir. Oct. 21, 2016). We have 

7	 examined them. 

8	 The District Court’s ruling that 52 documents should be 

9	 withheld and that all or part of seven documents should be 

10	 disclosed is now fully submitted for our review. 

11	 Discussion 

12	 Although the history of this litigation is regrettably 

13	 complicated, disposition of the pending appeal and cross14	 appeal is fairly straightforward. In general, continued 

15	 withholding of documents challenged on ACLU’s appeal and 

16	 reversal of the District Court’s disclosure rulings 

17	 challenged on the Government’s cross-appeal are warranted 

18	 either because disclosure would reveal information that 

																																																																		

7 After an inquiry from this Court, see No. 15-2956, Dkt. 

136 (2d Cir. Aug. 30, 2016), a response from the District Court, 

see No. 1:12-cv-00794-CM, Dkt. No. 142 (Oct. 20, 2016), and a 

further inquiry from this Court, see No. 15-2956, Dkt. No. 168 

(2d Cir. Oct. 21, 2016), the District Court confirmed this 

conclusion, see No. 1:12-cv-00794-CM, Dkt. No. 144 (Oct. 21, 

2016). 

Case 15-3122, Document 166-1, 12/20/2016, 1931481, Page11 of 17
12	

1	 should remain secret or because the documents are 

2	 predecisional drafts protected by FOIA Exemption 5. See

3	 Brennan Center for Justice v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 697 

4	 F.3d 184, 206-07 (2d Cir. 2012); Lahr v. National 

5	 Transportation Safety Board, 569 F.3d 964, 981-84 (9th Cir. 

6	 2009); Abdelfattah v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 488 

7	 F.3d 178, 183-84 (3d Cir. 2007). 

8	 ACLU’s appeal. We appreciate the difficulty ACLU 

9	 encounters in challenging the District Court’s decision to 

10	 withhold from disclosure 52 documents. ACLU has not seen 

11	 either the documents or the redacted portions of the 

12	 District Court’s opinion explaining the Court’s reasons. 

13	 Having carefully considered each of these documents, we 

14	 conclude that each of the District Court’s withholding 

15	 decisions was correct. The documents are protected by one 

16	 or more FOIA exemptions and no waiver of secrecy has 

17	 occurred with respect to any of them. Our ruling does not 

18	 turn on the issue of so-called “working law,” an issue 

19	 contested by ACLU. 

20	 The seven facts. At oral argument, it became clear that 

21	 the issue as to the seven facts identified by the District 

22	 Court in its July 16, 2015 opinion was whether the 

Case 15-3122, Document 166-1, 12/20/2016, 1931481, Page12 of 17
13	

1	 Government was asserting the right to withhold any 

2	 documents because these facts were contained in them. To 

3	 assist in resolving that issue the District Court directed 

4	 the relevant agencies to make a segregability review to 

5	 determine if the six acknowledged facts could be segregated 

6	 from protected portions of the documents in which they are 

7	 contained. As explained above, the District Court ruled 

8	 that the agencies’ submissions persuasively showed that 

9	 segregation could not be made. We agree with that ruling. 

10	 No further consideration of these six facts is needed. 

11	 With regard to the seventh fact, which the District 

12	 Court left for our consideration, we conclude that it is 

13	 unnecessary for the resolution of this appeal to determine 

14	 whether it has been officially acknowledged. The Government 

15	 did not assert the right to withhold any of the documents 

16	 at issue in this appeal on the ground that those documents 

17	 contained the seventh fact. Accordingly, even if we were to 

18	 conclude that the Government publicly acknowledged the 

19	 seventh fact, we would not order disclosure of any document 

20	 on that basis. No further consideration of the seventh fact 

21	 is required. 

Case 15-3122, Document 166-1, 12/20/2016, 1931481, Page13 of 17
14	

1	 Government’s cross-appeal. The seven documents ordered 

2	 disclosed by the District Court require individual 

3	 consideration. 

4	 OLC 46: This document, ordered disclosed in redacted 

5	 form, is an informal memo, attempting to summarize a 

6	 meeting at which legal advice was discussed. Indicating the 

7	 preliminary nature of the memo, the agency staff member who 

8	 prepared it asked the recipients to correct anything that 

9	 the writer had tried to summarize. The document is 

10	 predecisional under Exemption 5 and therefore need not be 

11	 disclosed. 

12	 OLC 50: This document is a draft of two paragraphs that 

13	 the document preparer suggested might be included in the 

14	 DOJ White Paper, the document, first leaked and then 

15	 officially disclosed, which provided a brief legal 

16	 justification for drone strikes. See NYTimes I, 756 F.3d at 

17	 110. Ultimately, the two paragraphs were not included in 

18	 the White Paper. The District Court considered the two 

19	 paragraphs similar to the legal advice contained in the 

20	 White Paper and the OLC-DOD Memorandum, as to which 

21	 privileges had been waived by disclosure. We acknowledge 

22	 some similarities, but agree with the Government that the 

Case 15-3122, Document 166-1, 12/20/2016, 1931481, Page14 of 17
15	

1	 document is demonstrably a draft. ACLU previously explained 

2	 that it is not seeking “drafts in this litigation,” and 

3	 stated that “[i]f the Court determines that [the 

4	 description of OLC 50 as a draft is] accurate, [then it] no 

5	 longer seeks th[at] document.” Reply Br. for ACLU at 17 

6	 n.11. Accordingly, because OLC is a draft protected by 

7	 Exemption 5 as predecisional and no longer sought by ACLU, 

8	 OLC 50 need not be disclosed. 

9	 OLC 144: This document, ordered disclosed in part, is a 

10	 set of suggested talking points concerning the legal basis 

11	 for drone strikes. We agree with the Government that the 

12	 document is predecisional and need not be disclosed. 

13	 Government officials do not lose the protection of 

14	 Exemption 5 by considering informally how to present a 

15	 legal analysis. 

16	 OLC 145: This is an internal outline of classified 

17	 facts and some fragmentary discussion of legal advice, 

18	 prepared in connection with the drafting of legal advice. 

19	 Although the District Court properly redacted portions of 

20	 the document, the remainder is also entitled to remain 

21	 protected as predecisional under Exemption 5. The document 

22	 need not be disclosed. 

Case 15-3122, Document 166-1, 12/20/2016, 1931481, Page15 of 17
16	

1	 CIA 59 tab C: This is a draft of a proposed op-ed 

2	 article that suggested some ways of explaining the 

3	 Government’s legal reasoning in support of drone strikes. 

4	 It was never published. Although it reveals some of the 

5	 unnamed writer’s thinking about legal justification for 

6	 drone strikes, it is a draft and for that reason 

7	 predecisional. It need not be disclosed. 

8	 CIA 109 and CIA 113: These documents, which the 

9	 District Court disclosed in part, are informal and 

10	 preliminary. The second is unsigned and undated. Despite 

11	 the redactions, some phrases entitled to secrecy remain. 

12	 Although both appear to have been written after the action 

13	 they comment on, they are nonetheless predecisional with 

14	 respect to the formulation of a policy or a clear legal 

15	 position. Neither document need be disclosed. 

16	 Conclusion 

17	 Chief Judge McMahon ably performed the burdensome task 

18	 of examining scores of documents in this protracted 

19	 litigation, which now appears to be concluded. Despite our 

20	 slight disagreement with her assessment of a few of these 

21	 documents, we appreciate her diligence and the helpful 

22	 explanations in her sealed opinion. 

Case 15-3122, Document 166-1, 12/20/2016, 1931481, Page16 of 17
17	

1	 On ACLU’s appeal, the judgment is affirmed; on the 

2	 Government’s cross-appeal, the judgment is reversed; the 

3	 case is remanded for entry of a revised judgment. 

Case 15-3122, Document 166-1, 12/20/2016, 1931481, Page17 of 17