Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04643/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04643-21/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA A. GERSTEIN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, 

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-06-4643 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE

STATEMENT; DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

IN CAMERA REVIEW AND LIMITED

DISCOVERY

Before the Court are the following four motions: (1) Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment, filed August 2, 2007 by defendants Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”),

Department of Defense (“DOD”), Department of Justice (“DOJ”), Department of State

(“DOS”), Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), National Reconnaissance Office (“NRO”),

and National Security Agency (“NSA”); (2) Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Against Defendant Department of Justice, filed October 1, 2007 by plaintiff Joshua A.

Gerstein (“Gerstein”); (3) Motion for More Definite Statement from Defendant NSA

Regarding Scope of Search, filed October 1, 2007 by Gerstein; and (4) Motion for In

Camera Review and Limited Discovery, filed October 1, 2007 by Gerstein. Having

considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motions, the Court finds

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 1 of 34
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

1

 Gerstein’s request for records from the DOJ was handled by three separate offices

within the DOJ: the Office of Information and Privacy (“OIP”), the Office of Professional

Responsibility (“OPR”), and the Criminal Division (“CRM”), each of which provided separate

responses to Gerstein’s request.

2

the matters appropriate for decision without oral argument and rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

Gerstein alleges he is a professional journalist employed full-time as a reporter

covering legal and political issues for the New York Sun, a daily newspaper published in

New York City. (See Compl. ¶ 2.)

Gerstein alleges that “[f]rom mid-2005 to the present, President Bush, executive

branch officials, members of Congress, and the press have participated in an escalating

public debate about unauthorized disclosures, often called ‘leaks,’ of classified information.” 

(See Compl. ¶ 13.) According to Gerstein, such debate “has been spurred and fueled by a

series of highly-publicized news reports, including stories about alleged secret CIA prisons

overseas, about the warrantless surveillance by the NSA of certain telephone calls placed

or received by Americans, about an alleged decision by President Bush and Vice President

Cheney to declassify an intelligence estimate on Iraq without notifying personnel normally

notified in such declassification, and about the alleged tracking by government agencies of

billions of long-distance telephone calls made within the United States.” (See id.)

On March 16 and 17, 2006, Gerstein sent separate, but similar, requests under the

Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) to the CIA, DOD, DOJ,1

 DOS, FBI, NRO, and NSA,

pursuant to which Gerstein sought certain records relating to unauthorized disclosures of

classified information. (See Declaration of Joshua A. Gerstein (“Gerstein Decl.”) Exs. A, E,

G-J, M-N, and P-R.) As an example, Gerstein’s request to the CIA seeks the following

records:

1. All so-called criminal referrals submitted by CIA to the Department of

Justice (“DOJ”) since January 1, 2001 regarding unauthorized disclosure of

classified information to the press or public.

2. All responses from DOJ to CIA indicating the outcome of the

investigations, inquiries, or legal analyses related to the incidents referenced

in No. 1 above.

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 2 of 34
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

2

 Although Gerstein alleges that, as of the date of the complaint, he had not received

any of the requested records from any defendant, (see Compl. ¶¶ 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23),

each defendant has since responded to Gerstein’s requests.

3

 The Court previously granted summary judgment in favor of Gerstein with respect

to his claim that the CIA and NSA violated FOIA by failing to grant Gerstein’s request for

expedited processing. (See Order filed November 29, 2006.) 

4

 The applicability of various exemptions to documents contained in the case files for

individual leak investigations will be addressed by future motions for summary judgment.

3

3. All records reflecting the outcome of disciplinary proceedings instituted in

connection with the incidents referenced in No. 1 above.

4. All records reflecting the outcome of damage assessments conducted in

connection with the incidents referenced in No. 1 above.

5. All logs, lists, tallies, tabulations, summary reports, compilations, and the

like pertaining to the referrals described in No. 1 above, whether or not

composed solely of those referrals.

6. All records pertaining to published reports in or about August 1998 that the

United States was aware of or tracking a satellite telephone used by Osama

Bin Laden, the source or sources of that alleged leak, all referrals by DOJ in

connection with that alleged leak, all replies from DOJ thereto, and any

damage assessment conducted in connection with that alleged leak.

(See id. Ex. A at 1-2.)

Gerstein filed the instant action on July 31, 2006.2

 Gerstein alleges, inter alia, that

all defendants have violated FOIA by failing to conduct the requisite records searches in

response to Gerstein’s requests, and by applying scope, subject matter, and/or temporal

restrictions that render their searches insufficient under FOIA, (see Compl. ¶ 31); Gerstein

further alleges that all defendants are violating FOIA by unlawfully withholding documents

that are not exempt or otherwise excluded from disclosure under FOIA, (see id. ¶ 33).3

The instant cross-motions for summary judgment address two issues: the adequacy

of each defendant’s search for records responsive to Gerstein’s requests, and the propriety

of each defendant’s withholding of documents pursuant to each FOIA exemption asserted.4

Gerstein’s additional motions address his asserted need for a more definite statement from

the NSA regarding the scope of its search, in camera review by the Court, and leave to

conduct limited discovery pertaining to defendants’ public statements regarding matters

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 3 of 34
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

4

that defendants argue herein are exempt from disclosure.

LEGAL STANDARD

FOIA provides that “each [federal] agency, upon any request for records which

(A) reasonably describes such records and (B) is made in accordance with published rules

stating the time, place, fees (if any), and procedures to be followed, shall make the records

promptly available to any person.” See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3). 

Nine specific categories of records are exempt from disclosure. See 5 U.S.C.

§ 552(b). The exemptions “have been consistently given a narrow compass,” see United

States Dept. of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 151 (1989), and agency records that

“do not fall within one of the exemptions are improperly withheld,” see id. (internal quotation

omitted). If only a portion of a record is exempt from disclosure, the agency must disclose

the non-exempt portion if it is “reasonably segregable.” See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (“Any

reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such

record after deletion of the portions which are exempt”). 

“FOIA expressly places the burden ‘on the agency to sustain its action’ and directs

the district courts to ‘determine the matter de novo.’” United States Dept. of Justice v.

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 755 (1989) (quoting

§ 552(a)(4)(B)). Under FOIA, a district court may “enjoin the agency from withholding

agency records and . . . order the production of any agency records improperly withheld.” 

See 5 U.S.C. § 522(a)(4)(B). FOIA does not provide a monetary remedy. Gale v. U.S.

Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 628 F.2d 224, 226 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 1980). 

DISCUSSION

In their motion for summary judgment, defendants first seek judgment in their favor

on the issue of the adequacy of each of their respective searches for documents

responsive to Gerstein’s FOIA requests. In response, Gerstein states he does not oppose

summary judgment with respect to the searches conducted by eight of the nine responding

entities, but contests the adequacy of the search conducted by the NSA; further, as noted,

Gerstein has moved for a more definite statement regarding the NSA’s search. Defendants

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 4 of 34
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

5

The remaining three defendants, either, as in the case of the DOS, did not locate

any responsive documents, or, as with the DOD and FBI, only located documents

pertaining to case-specific files, a matter which, as noted, is not at issue in the instant

motions. 

Moreover, in light of the fact that the DOS found no responsive records, and

because the adequacy of the DOS’s search is not contested, Gerstein states there is no

longer a case or controversy between himself and the DOS, and, accordingly, consents to

entry of judgment in favor of the DOS. (See Pl.’s Opp’n at 2:9-13.)

6

 To the extent Gerstein, in his motion for partial summary judgment, also sought

judgment with respect to the DOJ’s withholding in its entirety of a third “leak tracking

database” under Exemption 1, Gerstein subsequently filed a motion for leave to withdraw,

without prejudice, that portion of his motion. (See Pl.’s Reply and Mot. for Leave to

Withdraw in Part Cross-Motion for Partial Summary J. at 3:5-7.) The motion for leave to

withdraw is hereby GRANTED and the subject portion of Gerstein’s motion for partial

summary judgment is deemed withdrawn.

7

 Gerstein brings his motion for a more definite statement under Rules (12)(e) and

56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 12(e) is inapplicable, as it concerns the

sufficiency of complaints and their equivalents. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) (providing “[a]

party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading

is allowed”; Fed R. Civ. P. 7 (defining “pleadings” as complaints, crossclaims, answers and

5

additionally seek summary judgment on the issue of the propriety of their withholding of

documents, under various FOIA exemptions, by six of the nine responding entities,

specifically, the NRO, NSA, CIA, OIP, CRM, and OPR;5

 as to each such agency, Gerstein

opposes such a finding. 

In his cross-motion for partial summary judgment, Gerstein seeks summary

judgment on two limited issues: the CIA’s asserted waiver of one exemption, and the

sufficiency of the CRM’s showing as to the redaction of file numbers contained in two “leak

tracking databases” released by the CRM.6

 By his remaining motion, Gerstein seeks in

camera review of a subset of documents withheld under the “deliberative process” privilege

contained in Exemption 5, and requests leave to conduct discovery with respect to public

statements authorized by defendants, as well as official declassifications or partial

declassifications by defendants, related to documents withheld under Exemption 1 or

Exemption 3. Defendants oppose, without qualification, each of Gerstein’s motions.

I. Adequacy of the NSA’s Search

As noted, Gerstein disputes the adequacy of the NSA’s search for responsive

documents, and requests a more definite statement from the NSA regarding its search.7

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 5 of 34
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

replies to answers). Rule 56(f) provides that a motion for summary judgment may be

denied or continued where the opposing party has not had an opportunity to obtain

discovery necessary to its opposition. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326

(1986). Accordingly, the Court construes Gerstein’s motion for a more definite statement as

a request that the Court deny or defer ruling on defendant’s motion, to allow for discovery.

6

Gerstein questions the adequacy of the NSA’s search for the reason that the NSA provided

to him, in response to a separate, earlier FOIA request, two documents that Gerstein

argues should have been, but were not, disclosed in response to the request at issue

herein. 

“The adequacy of the agency's search is judged by a standard of reasonableness,

construing the facts in the light most favorable to the requestor.” Citizens Comm'n on

Human Rights v. Food and Drug Admin., 45 F.3d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1995). “The agency

must[ ] demonstrate that it has conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all

relevant documents.” Zemansky v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 767 F.2d 569, 571 (9th

Cir.1985) (internal quotation and citation omitted)). “In demonstrating the adequacy of the

search, the agency may rely upon reasonably detailed, nonconclusory affidavits submitted

in good faith.” Id.

“[T]he issue to be resolved is not whether there might exist any other documents

possibly responsive to the request, but rather whether the search for those documents was

adequate.” Id. Consequently, “the failure of an agency to turn up one specific document in

its search does not alone render a search inadequate.” See Iturralde v. Comptroller of

Currency, 315 F.3d 311, 315 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). 

Here, with respect to the adequacy of its search, the NSA offers, inter alia, the

declaration of Rhea D. Siers (“Siers”), Deputy Associate Director for Policy and Records for

the NSA, (see Decl. of Rhea D. Siers (“Siers Decl.”) ¶ 1), who describes both the NSA’s

search procedures in general and the NSA’s search for documents responsive to

Gerstein’s request. Regarding the NSA’s general search procedures, Siers states:

[W]hen NSA’s FOIA office receives a properly submitted FOIA request, it assigns

a case number to the request and the request is logged into the [NSA’s] FOIA

database. A search of that database is conducted to determine if an identical

response or similar request will help speed processing in the current case. If no

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 6 of 34
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

7

identical or similar case is found, the FOIA intake staff officers identify those

organizations within the [NSA] that the staff believes are most likely to have

responsive material. The staff then sends to each of those organizations a

search request or a search cost estimate, depending on the requester’s fee

status. . . .

A search is then conducted in each organization tasked to look for responsive

documents. Each organization may task subordinate offices to search for

responsive records. Both electronic and paper searches for records are

generally conducted for FOIA requests. If and when responsive records are

located, standard NSA procedure provides that the documents are forwarded to

the FOIA unit. When the FOIA case officer’s review of the records begins, he or

she conducts a line-by-line, word-for-word review of the records that have been

forwarded. The case officer’s review includes determining whether the records

are in fact responsive to the request, whether the responsive records contain

information that is exempt from disclosure, and whether any reasonably

segregable nonexempt information exists in the responsive record. . . .

 (See id. ¶¶ 13-14.) Siers describes the search conducted in response to Gerstein’s

request, as follows:

In the present case, all NSA FOIA procedures were followed, and a thorough and

adequate search was conducted. Upon receiving the Plaintiff’s FOIA request, a

[NSA] FOIA staff officer assigned the request a case number and logged it into

the [NSA’s] FOIA database. The officer found no identical or similar FOIA

requests within the database. The officer then contacted those [NSA]

components assigned the responsibility for reporting unauthorized disclosures of

information pursuant to NSA Policy 1-27 and tasked those organizations to look

for any and all documents responsive to the Plaintiff’s request. Accordingly, the

NSA components identified 1,506 responsive pages of documents. . . .

(See id. ¶ 16.) Siers’ declaration is “reasonably detailed,” and “nonconclusory”; there is no

evidence it was submitted in bad faith, and it demonstrates the NSA conducted a search

“reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” See Zemansky, 767 F.2d at

571. The declaration thus suffices, as a matter of law, to establish that the NSA conducted

an adequate search. See Citizens Comm’n on Human Rights, 45 F.3d at 1328 (holding

declaration demonstrated adequate search, where declaration described agency’s search

for responsive records at main office and forwarding of request “to seven of its divisional

offices”; affirming grant of summary judgment in favor of agency). 

Indeed, Gerstein does not challenge the methods of the NSA’s search as set forth

by Siers; rather, he contends the NSA’s failure to produce two particular documents in

response to his request entitles him to a more definite statement as to the details of the

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 7 of 34
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

8

 As noted, Gerstein’s motion for a more definite statement is, in essence, an

additional motion for discovery; in this instance, Gerstein seeks a court-ordered response

to certain questions posed by Gerstein. (See Mot. for More Def. Stmt. at 4; Reply at 5.) 

8

instant search.8

 Defendants explain that the subject documents are not responsive to the

instant request. Even assuming such documents are responsive, however, Gerstein’s

argument is unavailing. As noted, an agency’s failure to identify a specific document in its

search “does not alone render a search inadequate,” see Iturralde, 315 F.3d at 315 (“[T]he

adequacy of a FOIA search is generally determined not by the fruits of the search, but by

the appropriateness of the methods used to carry out the search”), and, as set forth above,

the NSA has shown its search was conducted in a manner reasonably calculated to identify

all responsive documents. 

Accordingly, defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the issue of the

adequacy of each defendants’ search, and Gerstein’s motion for a more definite statement

from the NSA regarding the adequacy of its search will be denied. 

II. Defendants’ Withholding Under Particular FOIA Exemptions

A. Adequacy of Vaughn Indices

As an initial matter, in reviewing defendants’ withholding of documents under FOIA,

the Court must consider whether the “Vaughn indices” produced by defendants are

sufficiently detailed to permit the Court to determine whether any of the documents at issue

were improperly withheld. 

A Vaughn index, derived from Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C.Cir. 1973), is a

list “identifying each document withheld, the statutory exemption claimed, and a

particularized explanation of how disclosure of the particular document would damage the

interest protected by the claimed exemption.” See Wiener v. Federal Bureau of

Investigation, 943 F.2d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 1991). In the FOIA context, courts frequently

refer to affidavits submitted on behalf of the government agency as a “Vaughn index.” See,

e.g., id. at 978 n.6 (referring to five affidavits filed by FBI and CIA officials, collectively, as

“the Vaughn index”). 

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 8 of 34
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

9

“Courts are permitted to rule on summary judgment in FOIA cases solely on the

basis of government affidavits describing the documents sought.” Lion Raisins v. U.S.

Dept. of Agriculture, 354 F.3d 1072, 1082 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). “If the affidavits

contain reasonably detailed descriptions of the documents and allege facts sufficient to

establish an exemption, the district court need look no further.“ Lane v. Dept. of the

Interior, 523 F.3d 1128, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

Although the government “may not rely upon conclusory and generalized allegations of

exemptions,” it “need not specify its objections in such detail as to compromise the secrecy

of the information.” See Church of Scientology of California v. United States Dept. of the

Army, 611 F.2d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Because the detail required in a Vaughn index depends on the specific exemption

claimed, see Weiner, 943 F.2d at 979, the Court will address the adequacy of defendants’

Vaughn indices in connection with the specific exemptions on which each defendant relies. 

 B. The NRO

In response to Gerstein’s FOIA request, the NRO identified a single document

pertaining to unauthorized disclosures in general, as opposed to particular leak

investigations, and withheld the document in its entirety under Exemptions 1 and 3. (See

Decl. of E. Page Moffett (“Moffett Decl.”) ¶¶ 4-6.)

Exemption 1 exempts from disclosure “matters that are . . . (A) specifically

authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest

of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such

Executive order.” See 5 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1). 

“While the burden of proof is on the agency, a reviewing court must recognize that

the Executive departments responsible for national defense and foreign policy matters have

unique insights into what adverse [effects] might occur as a result of public disclosures of a

particular classified record.” Krikorian v. Department of State, 984 F.2d 461, 464 (D.C. Cir.

1993). “Accordingly, [the court] accord[s] substantial weight to an agency's affidavit

concerning the details of the classified status of the disputed record.” Id. 

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 9 of 34
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

10

E. Page Moffett (“Moffett”), General Counsel of the NRO, asserts that the document,

which consists of a 14-page statement by the Director of the NRO, “is classified Top Secret

with a number of Special Compartmented Information (SCI) caveats, indicating that the

information contained therein is extraordinarily sensitive.” (See Moffett Decl. ¶ 5.) 

By way of background, Moffett describes the NRO’s work as “the research and

development, design, acquisition, launch and operation of overhead reconnaissance

systems on behalf of the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community.” (See id.

¶ 7.) “In short,” Moffett states, “the NRO builds and operates ‘spy’ satellites, and

associated systems, that support our national policymakers and our warfighters.” (See id.) 

Moffett goes on to describe the contents of the withheld document as “a very detailed

description, to one of [the NRO’s] oversight committees, of the various leaks [to the media]

and of the ensuing damage they have caused to [the NRO’s] highly classified satellite

systems.” (See id. ¶ 10.) Moffett further explains that “[r]elease of this document would

confirm which particular media leaks were accurate and which were not,” the confirmation

of which “would allow our enemies to focus their countermeasure efforts to thwart the

confirmed capabilities of our satellites, thus causing great damage to our national security,”

(See id.).

Moffett’s affidavit contains a reasonably detailed description of the document and

facts sufficient to establish Exemption 1’s applicability to the withheld document. See, e.g.,

Salisbury v. U.S., 690 F.2d 966, 971-72 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (holding affidavit established

Exemption 1 applied where affiant described withheld material as “intelligence products

classified in their entirety to protect intelligence sources and methods,” and stated that

revelation of such sources could lead to loss of intelligence “harmful to the national

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 10 of 34
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

9

 The Court further notes that Gerstein does not suggest in his opposition that the

affidavit is not sufficiently detailed or otherwise inadequate to justify the withholding of the

document by the NRO.

10 Given the Court’s finding herein that the document was appropriately withheld by

the NRO under Exemption 1, the Court does not address the applicability of Exemption 3

thereto. See, e.g., Fund for Constitutional Gov’t v. Nat’l Archives and Records Serv., 656

F.2d 856, 864 n.19 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (finding, where court determined agency properly

withheld information under one exemption, court need not consider applicability of other

exemption on which agency relied).

11 Given this finding, the Court does not address herein the NSA’s arguments in

support of withholding under Exemptions 1 and 5.

11

security”). 9, 10

Accordingly, the NRO is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of the propriety

of its withholding of the subject document pursuant to Exemption 1.

C. The NSA

In response to Gerstein’s FOIA request, the NSA located 1506 pages of documents. 

(See Siers Decl. ¶ 17.) To the extent those documents are not related to specific cases or

investigations, the NSA withheld nine documents, either in whole or in part, consisting of a

total of 21 pages, pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, and 5. (See id. ¶ 21, 27.) As set forth

below, the Court finds each of the documents was properly withheld under Exemption 3.11

Exemption 3 permits withholding of “matters that are . . . specifically exempted from

disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of [Title 5]), provided that such statute

(A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no

discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to

particular types of matters to be withheld.” See 5 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3). 

“A two-part inquiry determines whether Exemption 3 applies to a given case.” Minier

v. CIA, 88 F.3d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). “First, a court must determine

whether there is a statute within the scope of Exemption 3.” Id. “Then, it must determine

whether the requested information falls within the scope of the statute.” Id. “Exemption 3

differs from other FOIA exemptions in that its applicability depends less on the detailed

factual contents of specific documents; the sole issue for decision is the existence of a

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 11 of 34
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

12 The NSA asserts that one of the nine documents is further protected from

disclosure under 18 U.S.C. § 798 and 50 U.S.C. § 403-1(i)(1). In light of the Court’s finding

herein that the documents are properly exempted on the basis of § 6, the Court does not

address herein the applicability of such alternative grounds for exemption.

12

relevant statute and the inclusion of withheld material within the statute's coverage.”

Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755, 761-62 (D.C. Cir. 1990); see also Hayden v. NSA, 608

F.2d 1381, 1390 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (noting factual showing “to satisfy Exemption 3 is by

nature less than for Exemption 1”).

Here, the NSA identifies § 6 of the National Security Agency Act of 1959, Pub. L. No.

86-36, as amended, 50 U.S.C. § 402 note (hereafter “§ 6”), as the statute under which it

withheld each of the nine documents.12 Section 6 provides, in pertinent part: 

“[N]othing in this Act or any other law . . . shall be construed to require the

disclosure of the organization or any function of the National Security Agency, of

any information with respect to the activities thereof, or of the names, titles,

salaries, or number of the persons employed by such agency.”

See Pub.L.No. 86-36, § 6, 73 Stat. 64 (1959), in 50 U.S.C. § 402 note (2007). Section 6

qualifies as a statute under which documents may be withheld pursuant to Exemption 3. 

See Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C., Inc. v. NSA, 610 F.2d 824, 828

(9th Cir. 1979). The Court next considers whether the requested information falls within the

scope of § 6. 

According to Siers, the Deputy Associate Director for Policy and Records for the

NSA, the nine withheld documents consist of the following: (1) “a chart detailing the

cryptologic insecurities suffered by NSA during 2006,” which chart “contains the dates on

which the unauthorized disclosures of information appeared, the sources in which the

unauthorized disclosures occurred, the subjects of the unauthorized disclosures, and the

origins of the information disclosed,” (see Siers Decl. ¶ 25); (2) “two documents totaling two

pages” which “contain the rosters for an interagency task force, including the names and

phone numbers of NSA employees,” (see id. ¶ 27); (3) “five documents totaling 15 pages”

and one duplicate document consisting of three pages, which “contain preliminary

proposals for handling investigations of unauthorized disclosures,” (see id.). 

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 12 of 34
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

13

Each of the withheld documents falls squarely within the scope of § 6, for the reason

that each such document concerns a “function” of the NSA and contains “information with

respect to the activities thereof.” See Pub.L.No. 86-36, § 6. Specifically, the contents of

the first document concern unauthorized disclosures pertaining to the NSA’s “intelligence

collection assignments” and “the technical details of collection,” (see Siers Decl. ¶ 25),

which information concerns both the “function” of NSA and one of the fundamental

“activities,” if not the fundamental activity, of NSA, see Pub.L.No. 86-36, § 6. With respect

to the two documents containing rosters for an interagency task force, public disclosure of

said documents would confirm the existence of the task force, as well as the identities of

the membership thereof, revealing information about NSA activities in connection with leaks

of intelligence information; moreover, disclosure of said documents would reveal “the

names . . . of the persons employed by [NSA].” See id. The last set of documents,

consisting of proposals for handling investigations of unauthorized disclosures, clearly

contain “information related to the inner workings of the NSA,” (see Siers Decl. ¶ 27), and

readily qualify as information concerning the “activities” of the NSA. 

In sum, § 6 permits the withholding of documents that fall within its scope, and the

NSA has described the nature of the intelligence activity implicated by each of the withheld

documents with sufficient specificity to show that each such document falls within the scope

of the statute. See, e.g., Hayden, 608 F.2d at 1390-91 (finding NSA met burden under § 6

and Exemption 3 where affidavit “ha[d] described the intelligence activity involved, and

ha[d] shown why disclosure of requested materials could reveal the nature of that activity”).

Accordingly, the NSA is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of the propriety

of its withholding of the subject nine documents pursuant to Exemption 3.

D. The CIA 

Upon the CIA’s processing of Gerstein’s FOIA request, the CIA located 270

documents responsive thereto. (See Decl. of Linda Dove (“Dove Decl.”) ¶ 36.) To the

extent those documents are not related to individual cases or investigations, the CIA

withheld, either in whole or in part, seventeen documents it had located in its own records,

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 13 of 34
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

13 “A ‘referral’ occurs when an agency [other than the CIA] locates responsive

information that originated with the CIA. In such a case, that agency transmits the

document to the CIA for a direct response to the FOIA requester.” (Dove Decl. ¶ 11 n.3.)

14 In light of this finding, the Court does not address herein the CIA’s reliance on

other exemptions to support such withholding.

14

as well as fourteen documents that had been referred to the CIA by the DOJ;13 each such

document and partial document, the CIA asserts, is exempt from disclosure pursuant to,

inter alia, Exemption 3. (See id. ¶¶ 40, 42, 44.) As set forth below, the Court finds

Exemption 3 is applicable to the seventeen documents and portions of documents located

by the CIA in its own records.14 With respect to the fourteen documents referred to the CIA

by the DOJ, however, the Court finds the affidavit provided by the CIA is not sufficiently

detailed to allow the Court to determine whether Exemption 3, or any other exemption,

applies.

The CIA relies on two statutes to support its withholding of the subject documents

under Exemption 3, specifically, § 102A(i)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947, as

amended, 50 U.S.C. § 403-1(i)(1) (hereafter “§ 403-1(i)(1)”), and § 6 of the Central

Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, as amended, 50 U.S.C. § 403g (hereafter “§ 403g”). 

Section 403-1(i)(1) is broadly-worded and provides: “The Director of National Intelligence

shall protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.” See 50

U.S.C. § 403-1(i)(1). Section 403g, by comparison, is more specific, in that it exempts the

CIA from disclosing certain categories of information, as follows:

“In the interests of the security of the foreign intelligence activities of the United

States and in order further to implement section 403-1 of this title . . . the Agency

shall be exempted . . . [from disclosing] the organization, functions, names,

official titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed by the Agency.”

See 50 U.S.C. § 403g. Each of said statutes qualifies as a statute under which documents

may be withheld pursuant to Exemption 3. See Berman v. CIA, 501 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th

Cir. 2007) (holding § 403-1(i)(1) constitutes statutory basis for Exemption 3); Wiener v. FBI,

943 F.2d 972, 983 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding § 403g constitutes statutory basis for Exemption

3). 

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 14 of 34
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

15 As the Ninth Circuit has observed, there exists, subsequent to the Supreme

Court’s application of Exemption 3 to CIA records in Sims, “a near-blanket FOIA

exemption” for CIA records. See Hunt v. CIA, 981 F.2d 1116, 1118 & 1120 (9th Cir. 1992)

(recognizing ruling in Sims leaves courts “only a short step from exempting all CIA records

from FOIA”) (internal quotation and alteration omitted). 

16 Gerstein initially challenged the propriety of the CIA’s withholding pursuant to 

§ 403-1(i)(1), on the ground the CIA lacked specific authorization for such withholding from

the Director of National Intelligence. The CIA subsequently submitted supplemental

documentation supporting such authorization, (see Second Decl. of Linda Dove Ex. A), and

Gerstein, in his sur-reply, concedes the CIA has met such requirement, (see Pl.’s Sur-reply

at 2:11-12).

15

Turning to the question of whether the information requested herein falls within the

scope of § 403-1(i)(1) or § 403g, the Court first notes the heightened degree of deference

given to, and the lesser level of specificity required of, CIA affidavits concerning documents

withheld under Exemption 3. Specifically, the Court, when considering the CIA’s showing

under Exemption 3, is “required to give ‘great deference’ to the CIA's assertion that a

particular disclosure could reveal intelligence sources or methods,” see Berman, 501 F.3d

at 1140 (quoting CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159, 179 (1985)).15 “CIA affidavits must,” however, 

“describe the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail, demonstrate

that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemptions, and show that the

justifications are not controverted by contrary evidence in the record or by evidence of CIA

bad faith.” See Hunt, 981 F.2d at 1119. 

In the instant case, Gerstein, in addition to his more general challenge, singles out

the CIA’s reliance on § 403g in withholding CIA file numbers on documents, as well as the

adequacy of the CIA’s Vaughn index with respect to Document Number 1396562.16

Gerstein’s argument in this regard is unavailing. First, contrary to Gerstein’s argument, the

CIA may properly withhold file numbers under § 403g “as information concerning the CIA’s

internal structure.” See Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 578 F.Supp. 704, 723 (D. D.C.1983). Second,

the CIA has provided sufficient detail in its Vaughn index to establish Document Number

1396562 was properly withheld under Exemption 3. The relevant entry in the Vaughn index

describes the subject document as “a 2-page document outlining CIA/Office of Security

procedures regarding investigations of unauthorized disclosures.” (See Dove Decl. Ex. A

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 15 of 34
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

17 The document referenced above to which Gerstein expressly objected,

specifically, Document Number 1396562, constitutes the tenth document in this category. 

(See id.)

16

at unnumbered 7.) The entry further specifies that the document contains discussion

regarding, inter alia, “the office’s efforts to prevent and deter unauthorized disclosures, the

office’s investigative techniques, [and] possible means for disciplining individuals who make

unauthorized disclosures,” and that the information contained therein “details the methods

by which the CIA deters and investigates unauthorized disclosures, and identifies

weaknesses and problems in the CIA’s approach.” (See id.) 

Such description provides, in reasonably specific detail, sufficient justification for

nondisclosure, in that the CIA’s critical self-analysis and identification of the weaknesses of

its approach to preventing unauthorized disclosures would logically reveal intelligence

methods. The description likewise demonstrates that the information in the document,

which concerns prevention of unauthorized leaks as well as the CIA’s “investigative

techniques,” (see id.), logically falls within the category of “intelligence methods” protected

by § 403-1(i)(1). Further, the CIA’s justification for withholding such document is not

“controverted by contrary evidence in the record or by evidence of CIA bad faith.” See

Hunt, 981 F.2d at 1119.

With respect to the documents, or portions of documents, withheld by the CIA under

Exemption 3 and to which Gerstein’s objection to withholding is not made on an individual

basis, the Court finds the remaining sixteen documents located in the CIA’s records were

properly withheld under § 403-1(i)(1), but that the CIA’s affidavit is insufficient to support its

withholding of the fourteen documents referred to the CIA by the DOJ. The Court first

addresses the withheld documents that were located in the CIA’s records.

As set forth in the declaration of Linda Dove (“Dove”), Information Review Officer for

the Directorate of Support of the CIA, the sixteen withheld documents consist of the

following: (1) nine documents concerning “one unauthorized disclosure investigation that

resulted in disciplinary action taken against a CIA employee,” (see Dove Decl. ¶ 38)17; (2) a

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 16 of 34
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

17

letter from the CIA to the CRM, “alerting the Criminal Division to the disciplinary action that

the CIA took against two CIA contractors,” (see id. ¶ 39); and (3) six charts, organized by

year, “of criminal referrals for unauthorized disclosures,” (see id. ¶ 41). 

Each of the sixteen documents falls squarely within the scope of § 403-1(i)(1), for

the reason that each such document concerns information regarding “intelligence sources

and methods.” See 50 U.S.C. § 403-1(i)(1). Dove explains how the release of information

regarding unauthorized disclosures would be harmful, as follows:

The information relating to intelligence sources and methods and intelligence

activities contained in these documents is in most instances substantive details

of the unauthorized disclosures for which the CIA made criminal referrals. For

example, the six documents [which consist of charts of criminal referrals] show,

for each unauthorized disclosure criminal referral, the title of the publication, the

author, and the date of publication. Disclosure of this information would reveal

the specific instances in which the CIA determined that an unauthorized

disclosure of classified information was made. This would confirm that the

publications included an unauthorized disclosure and would, inevitably, disclose

and authenticate the very classified information that was illegally disclosed.

For example, if an article disclosed a classified fact, and it were revealed that the

CIA made a criminal referral for an unauthorized disclosure on that specific

article, this revelation could confirm the classified fact, its classification, and the

connection between the CIA and that classified fact. In some instances it might

be more difficult to discern the classified information from a particular article,

given only its title, author, and date, but in others it could be quite clear.

(See Dove Decl. ¶¶ 61-62.) In short, Dove explains, “[d]isclosure of this information could

reasonably cause harm to national security in addition to the harm caused by the

unauthorized disclosure.” (See id. ¶ 63.) 

Additionally, Dove identifies the various ways in which release of the subject

documents would compromise “intelligence sources.” In particular, Dove attests, release of

the information contained therein could place “the safety and welfare of the [intelligence]

source, his family and even his associates . . . in jeopardy,” (see id. ¶ 66), and “could also

hamper future cooperation with sources” because release of such information “would likely

discourage other sources from cooperating with the CIA at a time when international

cooperation is critical to combating terrorism,” (see id. ¶ 67). 

Dove further points out that “intelligence methods,” such as “[s]ecret information

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 17 of 34
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

18

collection techniques[,] . . . are valuable from an intelligence-gathering perspective only so

long as they remain unknown and unsuspected.” (See id. ¶ 68.) Dove identifies one of the

intelligence methods used by the CIA as a procedure involving “the means by which CIA

assesses, evaluates, and acquires sources or potential sources,” and states that the

release of the withheld information would “reveal[ ] CIA’s recruitment, assessment, and use

of human intelligence sources, covert CIA facilities, and [ ] the manner in which the CIA

pursued its interests and intelligence activities in several countries.” (See id. ¶ 70.)

As described, each of the documents located in CIA records concerns either

disciplinary action taken by the CIA against a CIA employee or contractor for unauthorized

disclosures, (see id. ¶¶ 38, 39), or referrals made by the CIA to the DOJ for potential

criminal proceedings based on unauthorized disclosures, (see id. ¶ 41). Such

documentation is protected from disclosure under § 403-1(i)(1) as information containing

CIA’s “intelligence methods,” in that the release of the subject documents would confirm the

timing and manner in which an unauthorized disclosure had taken place, which would, as

Dove attests, “authenticate the very classified information that was illegally disclosed,” (see

id. ¶ 61), and could “confirm the classified fact, its classification, and the connection

between the CIA and that classified fact,” (see id. ¶ 62). The information is further

protected under § 403-1(i)(1) as information pertaining to the CIA’s “intelligence sources,”

for the reason that the documents’ confirmation of unauthorized leaks would, as noted,

confirm the CIA’s possession of the leaked information and would permit individuals in the

public to make reasonable inferences as to the sources of such CIA intelligence; such

public knowledge of CIA sources would, in turn, inhibit cooperation with the CIA by current

or potential sources. (See, e.g., id. ¶ 67.)

In sum, the affidavit provided by the CIA adequately describes the agency’s

justifications for nondisclosure and demonstrates that the sixteen documents logically fall

within the scope of § 403-1(i)(1), which showing, in turn, establishes said documents are

properly withheld under Exemption 3. See, e.g., Miller v. Casey, 730 F.2d 773, 777 (D.C.

Cir. 1984) (holding Exemption 3 properly applied where CIA affidavit identified three

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 18 of 34
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

18 To the extent the CIA’s affidavit suggests said documents are addressed in some

manner in the Vaughn index, (see, e.g., id. (statement that Dove “conducted a line-by-line

review of these documents and, as indicated in the attached Vaughn index, determined that

nine documents could be released in segregable form)), the Vaughn index is incomplete

with respect to said documents, in that it contains only six entries related to documents

referred from the DOJ, only five of which entries concern documents that were released in

segregable form. (See id. Ex. A.) Further, due to the general description of the documents

provided in the affidavit, it cannot be determined which of said documents are addressed

by an entry in the Vaughn index and which have been omitted therefrom.

19

possible ways acknowledgment of document “could jeopardize confidentiality of intelligence

sources or methods,” including by “providing critical confirmation which would allow . . .

identif[ication of] participants in . . . covert action” and “damaging future CIA efforts to

recruit sources”).

With respect to the group of fourteen documents referred from the DOJ, which

documents concern an “Inter-Agency Task Force on Unauthorized Disclosures,” (see Dove

Decl. ¶ 43), however, the affidavit provided by the CIA is insufficient to demonstrate said

documents were properly withheld under Exemption 3. In particular, the affidavit does not

“describe the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail,” see Hunt, 981

F.2d at 1119, or “demonstrate that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed

exemptions,” see id. Rather, the affidavit merely describes the documents, as a group, as

“related to the Inter-Agency Task Force on Unauthorized Disclosures that submitted a

report to Congress in 2002,” (see Dove Decl. ¶ 43), and states that “[t]he information

withheld from these documents was withheld on the basis of FOIA exemptions (b)(2),

(b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), and b(7)(E),” (see id. ¶ 44).18 The additional

statement that “twelve of the documents referred to CIA by DOJ . . . contain information

regarding the organization, functions, names, and official titles of personnel employed by

the CIA, as well as internal organizational information such as file numbers,” (see id. ¶ 79),

similarly fails to provide the requisite “reasonably specific detail.” See Hunt, 981 F.2d at

1119. 

Although the applicability of Exemption 3 may “depend[ ] less on the content of

specific documents than the other exemptions do,” see Miller, 730 F.2d at 777 (citation

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 19 of 34
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

19 Absent individual identification of each document referred by the DOJ, the CIA’s

assertion that other exemptions are applicable to various groups or sub-groups of such

documents fails to clarify the CIA’s position in this regard. (See, e.g., Dove Decl. ¶ 83

(asserting “10 of the documents that DOJ referred to CIA” contain information protected by

Exemption 5, without specifying individual documents).)

20

omitted), the CIA nonetheless must provide a sufficiently detailed description of the

withheld document or information such that the Court is able to determine, as it must for

purposes of Exemption 3, whether the “withheld material [falls] within the statute's

coverage,” see Fitzgibbon, 911 F.2d at 761-62. With respect to the group of fourteen

documents referred by the DOJ, the CIA has failed to do so. Moreover, the CIA’s proffered

rationale for withholding said documents is conclusory and thus insufficient to justify

withholding under Exemption 3. See Hunt, 981 F.2d at 1119 (holding “CIA affidavits must

describe the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail [and]

demonstrate that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemptions”);

see also Wiener, 943 F.2d at 983 (finding CIA affidavit insufficient to justify Exemption 3

withholding, where affidavit “failed to discuss the facts or reasoning” behind affiant’s

conclusion that disclosure could “lead to identification of the source of information”). 

Further, due to the CIA’s treatment of the documents as a group rather than a discussion of

each individual document, the Court is unable to determine which exemption, of those

exemptions listed, the CIA may be asserting with respect to each of the particular

documents, much less whether any asserted exemption properly applies to each such

document.19

Where an agency’s affidavit is determined to be insufficient, and it appears that a

more detailed affidavit could be presented, the court should permit the agency to provide a

more detailed affidavit. See, e.g., Wiener, 943 F.2d at 979 (remanding for submission of

more detailed Vaughn index, where agency, in original Vaughn index, “did not disclose all it

could”; noting in camera review “appropriate only after the government has submitted as

detailed public affidavits and testimony as possible”). In the instant case, because it

appears the CIA could provide a more detailed affidavit with respect to the fourteen

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 20 of 34
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

21

documents referred by the DOJ, the Court will, in this instance, afford CIA the opportunity

to do so. Such greater detail would both afford Gerstein a meaningful opportunity to either

accept or object to such withholding and permit the Court to determine, if later called upon

to so rule, whether such documents were properly withheld. See id. (noting one of

purposes of Vaughn index, is “to afford the requester an opportunity to intelligently

advocate release of the withheld documents and to afford the court an opportunity to

intelligently judge the contest”).

The Court next addresses Gerstein’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment, in

which Gerstein argues, inter alia, he is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of the

CIA’s withholding of documents under Exemption 2. Specifically, Gerstein asserts, the CIA

has waived Exemption 2 as to file numbers contained in two documents referred to the CIA

by the DOJ, by failing to raise it as a ground for withholding in it’s moving papers. In its

opposition, the CIA asserts such failure was “inadvertent,” (see Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s CrossMot. for Partial Summary J. at 3 n.3), and, in its reply filed concurrently therewith, provides

its argument in support of such withholding, (see Defs.’ Reply Memo. in Support of Defs.’

Mot. for Partial Summary J. at 8 n.7). In his reply, Gerstein does not challenge the CIA’s

proffered excuse for such omission. Further, Gerstein has addressed on its merits the

CIA’s argument regarding withholding under Exemption 2. (See Pl.’s Sur-Reply at 3:3-22.) 

The Court finds the CIA has made an adequate showing as to excusable neglect

and further finds Gerstein has incurred no prejudice from the delay. Accordingly, Gerstein

is not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of the CIA’s waiver of Exemption 2. As

noted above, however, the CIA has failed to provide, under any of its claimed exemptions,

sufficient evidentiary support for its withholding of the documents referred from the DOJ.

Accordingly, the CIA is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of the propriety of

its withholding of the seventeen documents located in the CIA’s records pursuant to

Exemption 3; the CIA is not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of the propriety of

its withholding of the fourteen documents referred by the DOJ.

E. The OIP

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 21 of 34
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

20 As noted, the OIP is the Office of Information and Privacy within the DOJ.

21 Because, as set forth below, the Court finds each of the records was properly

withheld under the deliberative process privilege, the Court does not reach the OIP’s

arguments in support of withholding under the presidential communications privilege.

22

The OIP20 located 1096 pages of records responsive to Gerstein’s FOIA request, of

which it referred 152 pages to other DOJ departments or government agencies it

determined maintained a primary interest in such material, (see Decl. of Melanie Ann

Pustay, Ex. 7 to Defs.’ Mot. for Partial Summary J. (“First Pustay Decl.”) ¶ 23), and

disclosed 257 pages in full to Gerstein, (see Decl. of Melanie Ann Pustay, Ex. 9 to Defs.’

Mot. for Partial Summary J. (“Third Pustay Decl.”) ¶ 10). Of the remaining records, the OIP

withheld 109 pages in part and 611 pages in full pursuant to Exemption 5. (See id.) The

OIP claims that all 720 pages of records withheld, in whole or in part, are protected by the

deliberative process privilege under Exemption 5, (see id. ¶ 13), and that four pages of

records included therein are, in addition, protected by the presidential communications

privilege, (see id.).21

Exemption 5 exempts from disclosure “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.” See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). Pursuant to Exemption 5, an agency may

“withhold[ ] from a member of the public[,] documents which a private party could not

discover in litigation with the agency,” see NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132,

148 (1975); in other words, Exemption 5 exempts from disclosure “those documents, and

only those documents, normally privileged in the civil discovery context,” see id. at 149.

The deliberative process privilege has been identified as a privilege that may be

invoked for the purpose of withholding documents under Exemption 5. See Maricopa

Audubon Society v. United States Forest Service, 108 F.3d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1997)

(noting privileges recognized for purposes of Exemption 5, including deliberative process

privilege). In general, the deliberative process privilege “covers documents reflecting

advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 22 of 34
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

23

which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.” See Dep’t of the Interior v.

Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 8 (2001) (internal quotation and citation

omitted). 

Each document withheld pursuant to the deliberative process privilege “must be

‘predecisional’ in nature and must also form part of the agency’s ‘deliberative process.’” 

See Maricopa, 108 F.3d at 1093 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). “A predecisional

document is one prepared in order to assist an agency decisionmaker in arriving at his

decision, and may include recommendations, draft documents, proposals, suggestions, and

other subjective documents which reflect the personal opinions of the writer rather than the

policy of the agency.” See id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). “A predecisional

document is part of the ‘deliberative process,’ if ‘the disclosure of [the] materials would

expose an agency's decisionmaking process in such a way as to discourage candid

discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the agency's ability to perform its

functions.’” See id. (citation omitted); see also NLRB, 421 U.S. at 150 (noting “human

experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well

temper candor with a concern for appearances . . . to the detriment of the decisionmaking

process”); Klamath Water Users, 532 U.S. at 8-9 (noting “[t]he deliberative process

privilege rests on the obvious realization that officials will not communicate candidly among

themselves if each remark is a potential item of discovery and front page news”). 

The withholding agency “bears the burden of establishing the character of the

decision, the deliberative process involved, and the role played by the documents in the

course of that process.” See Bay Area Lawyers Alliance for Nuclear Arms Control v. Dep’t

of State, 818 F.Supp. 1291, 1297 (N.D. Cal.1992) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

Here, the OIP submits the declaration of Melanie Ann Pustay (“Pustay”), Director of

the OIP, in which Pustay classifies the documents withheld by the OIP into nine groups. 

The first four groups of documents are summarized as follows: (1) “unsigned, usually

undated, draft letters and memoranda, many with extensive handwritten notes,” constituting

“preliminary versions of what will later become a final document,” (see Third Pustay Decl. ¶

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 23 of 34
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

24

15); (2) “handwritten notes containing sentence fragments, questions, and other notations

reflecting legal analyses,” “a copy of the March 31, 1982 ‘Williard Report’ on classified

leaks and a copy of the Attorney General’s October 15, 2002 letter to Congress on the

classified leaks task force,” both of which contain “unsegregable marginalia and notations,”

and copies of federal statutes containing “extensive notes and marginalia which likewise

could not be segregated,” (see id. ¶ 18); (3) documents “created pursuant to the classified

leaks task force, and the working groups under the umbrella of that task force,” such as, for

example, “working group meeting summaries,” (see id. ¶ 21); (4) “e-mail messages

pertaining to the preparation of the Attorney General’s report to Congress,” which

messages consist of “commentaries on and discussions of the proposed content and

formatting of the report,” (see id. ¶ 16).

The latter five groups of documents are summarized as follows: (5) a memorandum

from the Office of Legislative Affairs to the Office of Management and Budget, which

memorandum contains the DOJ’s views on suggested revisions to the Intelligence

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, (see id. ¶ 22); (6) memoranda that “relate to the

establishment of the classified leaks task force, and address initial considerations to be

addressed in anticipation of its creation, including proposed issues and preliminary

questions, and recommendation on selecting a task force chair,” (see id. ¶ 23);

(7) memoranda and reports on the investigation of classified leaks, which include views on

a draft report to the Office of Management and Budget and recommendations by the

interagency task force on classified leaks, (see id. & attached Vaughn index at unnumbered

3-4); (8) an unsigned, undated summary and assessment of the recommendations made in

the “Willard Report” and an unsigned, undated document containing recommendations for

implementation of whistleblower protections, (see id. & attached Vaughn index at

unnumbered 4); and (9) a three-page “letter from former Deputy Attorney General Jamie

Gorelick to the Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, . . . providing

the [DOJ’s] views and advice on the handling of classified leaks,” and a portion of a oneCase 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 24 of 34
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

22 Contrary to Gerstein’s suggestion that Exemption 5 does not cover the four pages

of records described in the ninth group, for the reason that the documents were directed to

an official on the National Security Council, such documents qualify for protection under

Exemption 5, because their “source [is] a Government agency.” See Kalmath Water Users, 532 U.S. at 8. Gerstein does not contend the DOJ, the “source” of the four pages at issue,

is not a government agency.

25

page document that describes said letter, (see id. ¶ 27).22 Pustay’s affidavit, combined with

the supplemental information in the Vaughn index attached thereto, demonstrates that the

subject documents fall within the scope of the deliberative process privilege under

Exemption 5. 

As an illustration of the type of detailed information contained in the Vaughn index

accompanying the Pustay Declaration, the above-referenced third group of documents is

described as consisting of the following:

Documents comprising the “work product” of the working groups on classified

leaks, including taskings, analyses, comments, recommendations, agendas with

handwritten notations, interim reports offering proposals and analyses, group

goals and questions for consideration

Summaries of six separate working group chair meetings discussing back and

forth between meeting participants

One e-mail message from the [Principal Associate Attorney General] to members

of three classified leaks working groups, soliciting comments on particular areas

of interest of the leaks task force 

(See id. Vaughn index at unnumbered 2.) 

As exemplified by the above-quoted entry, Pustay’s affidavit and the Vaughn index

attached thereto contain detailed, particularized descriptions of the withheld documents

sufficient to establish that each such document “reflect[s] advisory opinions,

recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental

decisions and policies are formulated.” See Klamath Water Users, 532 U.S. at 8. The

disclosure of any of the subject materials, and particularly the internal assessments and

recommendations contained in memoranda and memorialized in documents emanating

from working groups, would expose the OIP’s decisionmaking process in a way that would

“discourage candid discussion within the agency.” See Maricopa, 108 F.3d at 1093 (finding

internal investigative report and portions of accused official’s letter responsive thereto

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 25 of 34
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 23 As noted, the CRM is the Criminal Division within the DOJ. 

26

properly withheld by agency under deliberative process privilege, where disclosure of

subject materials “would be likely in the future to stifle honest and frank communication

within the agency”). In sum, the OIP has adequately demonstrated that the withheld

documents “were prepared in order to assist an agency decisionmaker in arriving at his

decision,” and that each such document is part of the OIP’s “deliberative process.” See id.

Accordingly, the OIP is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of the propriety of

its withholding of 720 pages of records pursuant to the deliberative process privilege under

Exemption 5.

F. The CRM 

In response to Gerstein’s FOIA request, the CRM23 located 67 responsive

documents in its own records, (see Decl. of Pamela A. Roberts (“Roberts Decl.”) ¶¶ 8-12),

and was referred 35 additional responsive documents originating from other agencies, (see

id. ¶¶ 14-16). Among those documents not related to specific cases or investigations, the

CRM withheld 34 documents, in whole or in part, pursuant to the deliberative process

privilege under Exemption 5, (see id. ¶ 25-27), portions of six documents pursuant to

Exemptions 6 and 7(C), (see id. ¶¶ 40), and “four deletions” on one page of one document

pursuant to Exemption 3, (see id. ¶ 22). To the extent the CRM withheld information under

Exemption 6, Gerstein does not dispute such withholding, (see Pl.’s Opp’n at 23:1-4);

Gerstein likewise does not contend the CRM improperly withheld information under

Exemption 3, (see, e.g., id. at 11-16). With respect to the 34 withheld documents withheld

under Exeption 5, the CRM subsequently determined one of such documents is not

responsive to Gerstein’s request, for the reason that the leak investigation identified in the

document “does not involve disclosure of classified information and is unrelated to national

security matters.” (See Roberts Decl. ¶ 27 (Item 42).) For the reasons set forth below, the

Court finds the CRM’s withholding of the remaining 33 documents was proper under

Exemption 5.

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 26 of 34
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

27

To justify such withholding, the CRM submits the affidavit of Pamela A. Roberts

(“Roberts”), a Litigation Attorney for the CRM’s Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act

Unit. (See Roberts Decl. ¶ 1.) Roberts’ affidavit is exemplary in both its organization and

the level of detail provided. Roberts sets forth therein, by separate listing for each of the 33

relevant documents, the “Item number” assigned to the document, the date, if any, of the

document, the length of the document, the title of the document, a brief summary of the

contents of the document, and a statement of whether the document was withheld in part or

in full. (See, e.g., id. ¶ 25.) For example, the entry for one document withheld by the CRM

reads:

Item 44 - This is a nine page document dated February 28, 2002, entitled,

“Criminal Division Proposed Recommendations.” This document contains a

recommendation and analysis discussing relevant case law relating to

unauthorized disclosures of classified information. Withheld in full. 

(See id.) The Court need not reiterate the description of each of the 33 documents in order

to demonstrate each was properly withheld; rather, the Court notes four further examples

as representative of the nature of the documents withheld and the sufficiency of the CRM’s

justification therefor.

Item 49 - This is a five page document dated April 1, 2002, entitled, “Draft,

Criminal Statutes Applicable to Unauthorized Disclosures of Classified

Information.” This is a draft document discussing applicable statutes regarding

the disclosure of classified information. Withheld in full.

Item 50 - This is an undated one page document listing study groups with

proposed issues for each group to address in regard to protecting classified

information. Withheld in full.

Item 84 - This is a two page document dated February 28, 2002, entitled,

“Litigation Group, Proposed Recommendations.” This document contains a list

of proposed recommendations regarding the leaking of classified information with

handwritten notations. Withheld in full.

Item 123b - This is a one page e-mail between John Dion and Daniel Koffsky

dated February 6, 2002, regarding the leaks project. This e-mail contains an

informal response explaining a legal opinion by the Criminal Division concerning

unauthorized leaks of classified information prosecutions. Withheld in full.

(See id. ¶¶ 25-27.) 

As illustrated by the entries set forth above, the withheld documents were “prepared

in order to assist an agency decisionmaker in arriving at his decision,” see Maricopa, 108

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 27 of 34
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 24 As noted, the OPR is the Office of Professional Responsibility within the DOJ.

28

F.3d at 1093. Item 84, for example, was created for the purpose of providing

recommendations to assist the CRM’s decisionmaker in evaluating alternative courses of

action for preventing the disclosure of classified information. Additionally, the documents,

for example, Item 49, include “draft documents”, as well as “proposals,” as set forth in Items

50 and 84, and “which reflect the personal opinions of the writer rather than the policy of

the agency.” See id. Further, the disclosure of such documents “would expose an

agency's decisionmaking process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within

the agency and thereby undermine the agency's ability to perform its functions.’” Id.

(citation omitted). Specifically, were documents such as the document listed as Item 123b

to be disclosed, CRM personnel would be unable to engage in candid discussion within the

agency, including by e-mail, knowing their comments and internal policy communications

may later be made public.

Accordingly, the CRM is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of the propriety

of its withholding of documents pursuant to Exemption 3, Exemption 6, and the deliberative

process privilege under Exemption 5, and plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment

with respect to the propriety of the CRM’s withholdings will be denied.

G. The OPR

The OPR24 located 328 documents responsive to Gerstein’s FOIA request. (See

Vaughn Decl. of Mary Anne Hoopes (“Hoopes Decl.”) ¶ 46.) Of said responsive

documents, the OPR withheld 75 documents in part, as well as 13 documents in full, under

six exemptions, each such exemption covering a subset of the documents, as set forth

below. (See id. ¶ 46(e), (h).) 

To justify such withholding, the OPR provides the declaration of Mary Anne Hoopes

(“Hoopes”), Associate Counsel at the OPR, who supervised the OPR Freedom of

Information Act Specialist responsible for processing FOIA requests at the time Gerstein

submitted his request to the OPR. (See Hoopes Decl. ¶¶ 1-2.) Hoopes states therein that,

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 28 of 34
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

29

with respect to the 75 documents withheld in part, the exemptions are applicable as follows:

(1) portions of 71 documents are protected under Exemption 2; (2) portions of 14

documents are protected by Exemption 5; (3) portions of 6 documents are protected by

Exemption 6; (4) portions of 65 documents are protected by both Exemptions 6 and 7(C);

(5) a portion of one document is protected by Exemption 7(E). (See id. ¶ 46(e).) With

respect to the 13 documents withheld in full by the OPR, Hoopes states that: (1) 5

documents are protected by Exemption 2; (2) 12 documents are protected by Exemption 5;

(3) 3 documents are protected by Exemption 6; and (4) 3 documents are protected by both

Exemptions 6 and 7(C). (See id. ¶ 46(h).)

To the extent the OPR withheld information under Exemption 6, Gerstein does not

dispute such withholding, (see Pl.’s Opp’n at 23:1-4); Gerstein likewise does not dispute the

withholding of “telephone numbers, fax numbers, and computer file names, allegation

codes and location identifiers” pursuant to Exemption 2, (see id. at 11:12-13), which types

of information appear to constitute the majority of the OPR’s withholding under Exemption

2, (see, e.g., Hoopes Decl. ¶ 46(e)(ii) (stating 4 documents withheld in part “to protect

against disclosure of computer pathnames”), ¶ 46(e)(iii) (stating 65 documents withheld in

part “to protect against disclosure of OPR case file numbers, allegation codes and locations

codes”).) Gerstein’s acknowledgment that certain types of information need not be made

public likely implicates a considerable part of the documents withheld by the OPR,

specifically, portions of 71 documents for which Exemption 2 is claimed, portions of 6

documents for which Exemption 6 is claimed, portions of 65 documents for which both

Exemptions 6 and 7(C) are claimed, 5 documents withheld in full under Exemption 2, and 3

documents withheld in full under Exemption 6. (See id. ¶ 46(e), (h).) It cannot be

determined, however, from Hoopes’ declaration and the accompanying indices, (see

Hoopes Decl. Exs. K, M), whether the numerous documents for which the OPR claims

protection under either Exemption 2 or Exemption 6 also contain other redacted

information, for which neither of such exemptions is claimed as a basis for withholding. 

Moreover, the information submitted by the OPR does not appear to be complete. 

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 29 of 34
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

25 The OPR’s “Exemption Summary Index for Documents Withheld in Full,” (see id. Ex. M), refers to a Vaughn index both at Exhibit Y, (see id. Ex. M at 1), and at Exhibit X,

(see id. Ex. M at 2, 3). Neither Exhibit Y nor Exhibit X were submitted to the Court.

30

First, the document titled “Exemption Summary Index for Documents Disclosed in Part,”

(see id. Ex. K), identifies, describes, and provides a rationale for the OPR’s partial

withholding of only 32 documents, whereas Hoopes states the OPR withheld 75 documents

in part, (see id. ¶ 46(e)). 

Second, Hoopes’ declaration, as well as the above-referenced Summary Index and

the “Exemption Summary Index for Documents Withheld in Full,” (see id. Ex. M), refer, in

each instance, to what appears to be a combined Vaughn index, of 79 pages in length, that

“provides a detailed description of each document, the nature and type of information

withheld, and the justification for withholding that information.” (See id. ¶ 83 (citing to

“Vaughn index” located at Exhibit Y); id. Ex. K (same); id. Ex. M (same).) Moreover, each

entry in the Summary Indices directs the reader to the Vaughn index, located in Exhibit Y,

“for detailed discussion.” (See, e.g., id. Ex. K at 1.)25 The OPR fails, however, to attach to

the Hoopes Declaration, or otherwise submit, the combined, and assertedly more detailed,

Vaughn index. Absent such detailed descriptions as are purportedly contained therein, the

Court is unable to determine whether the retained documents, or portions thereof, were

properly withheld under any of the asserted exemptions. As with the CIA, however, the

Court will afford the OPR an opportunity to supplement its showing.

Accordingly, the OPR is not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of the

propriety of its withholding of the subject documents.

III. In Camera Review

As noted, Gerstein requests in camera review of a subset of the documents withheld

either in whole or in part pursuant to the “deliberative process” privilege under Exemption 5. 

Gerstein does not dispute the withholding or seek in camera review of draft documents

where the final version of such document was released, documents consisting of handannotated statutes or reports, or documents containing classified information. (See Pl.’s

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 30 of 34
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

31

Mot. for In Camera Review at 3:4-10.)

Under FOIA, the district court has the discretion “to examine the disputed documents

in camera for a first-hand determination of their exempt status.” See Church of Scientology

of California v. U.S. Dept. of Army, 611 F.2d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 1979). As the Ninth Circuit

has cautioned, however, in camera inspection should not be used to replace the

government’s burden in FOIA cases:

We cannot stress strongly enough . . . that the district court's inspection

prerogative is not a substitute for the government's burden of proof, and should

not be resorted to lightly. In cases involving requests for hundreds of documents,

no trial court can reasonably be expected to wade through a mass of exhibits in

camera.

See id.; see also Weiner, 943 F.2d at 979 (“In camera review of the withheld documents by

the court is not an acceptable substitute for an adequate Vaughn index.”). Consequently,

“resort to in camera review is appropriate only after the government has submitted as

detailed public affidavits and testimony as possible.” Weiner, 943 F.2d at 979. (internal

quotation and citation omitted). 

To the extent the OIP and the CRM have demonstrated, by affidavits filed in the

public records, the propriety of their respective withholdings under Exemption 5’s

deliberative process privilege, in camera review is not warranted. See Lewis v. IRS, 823

F.2d 375, 378 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding “district courts need not and should not make in

camera inspections where the government has sustained its burden of proof on the claimed

exemptions by public testimony or affidavits”); see also Hayden v. NSA, 608 F.2d 1381,

1387 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (noting “[w]hen the agency meets its burden by means of affidavits,

in camera review is neither necessary nor appropriate”). Similarly, to the extent the NSA

has demonstrated it properly withheld documents under Exemption 3, in camera review of

such documents for purposes of determining the applicability of Exemption 5 is not

necessary. 

With respect to documents for which the `withholding has not been adequately

supported by the agency’s current declarations, specifically, the group of fourteen

documents referred to the CIA by the DOJ and all documents withheld by the OPR, the

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 31 of 34
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

32

Court is not persuaded that the respective agencies have provided as detailed a showing

as possible with respect to the applicability of the asserted exemptions and, accordingly,

the Court will permit those agencies to supplement their showing with more detailed

declarations, rather than resorting, at this stage of the proceedings, to in camera review. 

See Pollard v. FBI, 705 F.2d 1151, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 1983) (“If the government’s initial

attempts to provide justification for its claimed exemption fail to provide a sufficient basis for

decision, the district court may require the government to submit more detailed public

affidavits before resorting to in camera review of the documents themselves and/or in

camera affidavits.”).

Accordingly, Gerstein’s motion for in camera review will be denied without prejudice.

IV. Request for Discovery

Gerstein seeks discovery with respect to government-authorized public statements,

as well as official declassifications or partial declassifications of documents, related to

documents withheld under either Exemption 1 or Exemption 3.

In the context of FOIA actions, provided certain criteria are met, summary judgment

is appropriate without further discovery. Specifically, summary judgment is appropriate

where the agency’s search was reasonable, the Vaughn index presented is adequate, and

the agency has “satisfied its burden of establishing that the requested documents [are]

exempt from disclosure.” See Citizens Comm’n on Human Rights, 45 F.3d at 1329

(affirming grant of summary judgment in favor of agency where district court did not permit

requested discovery; noting “[i]f the affidavits contain reasonably detailed descriptions of

the documents and allege facts sufficient to establish an exemption, the district court need

look no further”). 

Consequently, to the extent summary judgment will be granted as to documents

withheld under Exemptions 1, 3, and 5, discovery is not warranted. With respect to

documents for which the agency did not make a sufficiently detailed showing, the Court, as

noted, will permit the agency to provide a more detailed declaration. Under such

circumstances, it would be premature for the Court to grant discovery at this stage of the

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 32 of 34
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

33

proceedings.

Accordingly, Gerstein’s motion for limited discovery will be denied without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,

1. Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED in part

and DENIED in part as follows:

a. With respect to the adequacy of the search conducted by each defendant,

the motion is granted.

b. With respect to the NRO’s withholding of a document under Exemption 1,

the motion is granted. 

c. With respect to the NSA’s withholding of documents under Exemption 3,

the motion is granted.

d. With respect to the CIA’s withholding of seventeen documents located in

its own records under Exemption 3, the motion is granted; with respect to the CIA’s

withholding of fourteen documents referred by the DOJ, the motion is denied. Such denial

is without prejudice to the CIA’s filing, no later than November 21, 2008, a renewed motion

for summary judgment in which the CIA supports the withholding of such documents with a

more detailed declaration.

e. With respect to the OIP’s withholding of documents under Exemption 5,

the motion is granted.

f. With respect to the CRM’s withholding of documents under Exemptions 3,

5, and 6, the motion is granted. 

g. With respect to the OPR’s withholding of documents, the motion is denied. 

Such denial is without prejudice to the OPR’s filing, no later than November 21, 2008, a

renewed motion for summary judgment in which the OPR supports the withholding of such

documents with a more detailed declaration.

h. With respect to the DOS, summary judgment is granted.

2. Gerstein’s Motion for More Definite Statement from Defendant NSA is hereby

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 33 of 34
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

34

DENIED.

3. Gerstein’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED.

4. Gerstein’s Motion for In Camera Review and Limited Discovery is hereby

DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04643-MMC Document 99 Filed 09/26/08 Page 34 of 34