Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-99-05316/USCOURTS-caDC-99-05316-0/pdf.json

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

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued October 6, 2000 Decided August 7, 2001

No. 99-5316

Students Against Genocide, et al.,

Appellants

v.

Department of State, et al.,

Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 96cv00667)

George S. LaRoche argued the cause and filed the briefs for

appellants.

Douglas N. Letter, Appellate Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With

him on the brief were David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant

Attorney General at the time the brief was filed, and Wilma

USCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 1 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

A. Lewis, U.S. Attorney at the time the brief was filed.

Leonard Schaitman, Attorney, entered an appearance.

Before: Rogers and Garland, Circuit Judges and

Silberman, Senior Circuit Judge.*

Garland, Circuit Judge: Pursuant to the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. s 552, Students Against

Genocide and other individuals and organizations (collectively

"SAGE" or "plaintiff") seek agency records relating to human

rights violations committed by Bosnian Serb forces in Bosnia

during the summer of 1995. We affirm the district court's

grant of summary judgment in favor of the agencies, and

remand a limited issue regarding SAGE's eligibility for attorney's fees and costs.

I

Plaintiff's FOIA requests focus primarily on a presentation

made by then-U.S. Ambassador Madeleine Albright to the

United Nations Security Council on August 10, 1995. A New

York Times article published the following day reported that

Albright "told a closed door session of the Security Council

that 2,000 to 2,700 missing Bosnians ... might have been

shot by the Bosnian Serbs" when the Serbs seized the

Bosnian town of Srebrenica in July 1995. Barbara Crossette,

U.S. Seeks to Prove Mass Killings, N.Y. Times, Aug. 11, 1995,

at A3. According to the article, Albright supported the

allegation by showing classified "spy satellite" and "spy

plane" photographs to the Security Council.

The Times article reported that some of the photographs,

taken in mid-July 1995, showed "mounds of freshly dug

patches of earth" in areas where Bosnian Muslim families

were said to have been "herded together." One photograph

showed "about 600 people gathered in a soccer field," and

another, taken a few days later, showed "areas of freshly dug

earth" at the same location. The article reported that after

Albright's presentation, the Clinton Administration publicly

__________

* Senior Judge Silberman was in regular active service at the

time of oral argument.

USCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 2 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

released three of the photographs, "taken from a U-2 spy

plane," that "showed the disturbed soil." The Administration

decided to publicize the photographs, the article reported, "to

put pressure on the Bosnian Serbs to support a new peace

effort being promoted among European allies and the warring parties in the Balkans." Id.

On October 12 and 18, 1995, SAGE filed identical requests

for production of four categories of records from the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the Central

Intelligence Agency (CIA). As subsequently clarified, the

first two request categories, based on the New York Times

article, sought all photographs and documents used by Albright during her presentation to the Security Council. The

third category, of a more general nature, sought any documentation of atrocities in Bosnia from 1993 to the present.

The fourth category sought information referred to in a letter

that Michael Habib, Director of the State Department's Office

of Eastern European Affairs, sent to Beth Stephens, of the

Center for Constitutional Rights, on March 24, 1993. The

"Habib Letter" stated that the United States had reported

information concerning "rape and other grave breaches of the

Geneva Conventions" to the United Nations. Letter from M.

Habib to B. Stephens (Mar. 24, 1993) (quoted in Kadic v.

Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 250 n.10 (2d Cir. 1995)).1

__________

1 The four request categories were as follows:

(1) All of the satellite photographs and aerial photographs

taken in the Srebrenica area of Bosnia ... by US spy planes

and satellites which surveyed the area when and immediately

after Srebrenica was overrun by Bosnian Serb forces in, about,

and after July 11th, 1995, including those pictures of people

crowded into a soccer field and other places before, during and

after they were massacred, including all of those displayed by

Madeleine K. Albright, the United States delegate to the

United Nations, to the members of the United Nations Security

Council on or about August 10th, 1995 ....

(2) The documents containing the allegedly "sensitive information" shared on or about August 10th, 1995, by the United

States with the members of the Security Council, and the

"unique information" obtained by the United States and shared

at the same time with the members of the Security Council as

well as the eyewitness accounts and U.S. Intelligence data

In April 1996, at which time the agencies had not yet

released any documents in response to plaintiff's FOIA requests, SAGE filed a complaint in the United States District

Court for the District of Columbia. SAGE sought an order,

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. s 552(a)(4)(B) and (E), directing the

agencies to produce the four categories of requested records

and to pay attorney's fees and other litigation costs. SAGE

subsequently dismissed its claim with respect to the "Category Three" request, and only the Category One, Two, and

Four requests remain at issue in this litigation.

On October 10, 1997, after producing documents in response to plaintiff's requests, the defendant agencies filed a

motion for summary judgment.2 The agencies asserted that

USCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 3 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

__________

which "provides compelling evidence of barbarous and systematic murder by the Bosnia Serbs" in the area of Srebrenica ...

specifically referred to by Madeleine Albright in her statement

to the Security Council on or about August 10, 1995.

(3) Any documentation of the above nature pertaining to the

commission of war crimes, genocide and atrocities in Bosnia

from 1993 to the present ....

(4) [Information concerning] "rape and other grave breaches of

the Geneva Conventions" stated by Michael J. Habib, Director,

Office of Eastern European Affairs, United States Department

of State, to have been "reported" by the United States "to the

United Nations" in his letter to Beth Stephens, Center for

Constitutional Rights, March 24, 1993.

J.A. at 12-13, 18.

2 The agencies' motion was for partial summary judgment

regarding Categories One, Two, and Four. As noted, SAGE subsequently dismissed its claim regarding Category Three.

USCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 4 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

they had conducted a reasonable search and had released all

responsive documents (or reasonably segregable portions

thereof), except those that were exempt from release under

(inter alia) two FOIA exemptions: Exemption 1, which protects records properly classified in the interest of national

defense or foreign policy, 5 U.S.C. s 552(b)(1), and FOIA

Exemption 3, which protects records specifically exempted

from disclosure by statutes other than FOIA, 5 U.S.C.

s 552(b)(3). Defs.' Mot. for Partial Summ. J. at 8.

The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge,

who conducted a hearing and issued a report recommending

that the court grant the agencies' motion for summary judgment. In his report, the magistrate first noted SAGE's

complaint that the agencies had produced, or withheld and

indexed, many documents plaintiff believed were outside the

scope of its requests. The magistrate explained that during

the hearing it had become clear that the parties had "different interpretations" of the breadth of SAGE's requests. Students Against Genocide v. Dep't of State, No. CIVA96-667,

1998 WL 699074, at *3 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 1998) ("First Mag.

Rep't"). Plaintiff, he said, "view[s] [its] requests as very

narrow, seeking at most a handful of photographs and documents utilized by Albright at her presentation to the U.N.

Security Council, and a few specific documents to which a

[Department of State] official (Habib) referred in a particular

letter." Id. The agencies, by contrast, "read the requests

much more broadly by focusing on the phrase 'documents

containing the allegedly "sensitive information" shared' by

Albright with the Security Council.... Thus, they searched

for, and produced, documents which were not necessarily

used at the presentation but which contained the information

Albright shared." Id.

The magistrate also reported that SAGE "sought a statement from defendants that the documents which were processed ... were responsive to plaintiffs' three very specific

information requests." Id. Accordingly, the magistrate had

"secured a statement from the defendants that the information transmitted to [SAGE] was responsive to categories one

and two of the request as they related to Albright's presentaUSCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 5 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

tion." Id. The government further confirmed that all of the

information responsive to plaintiff's Category One and Two

requests had either been released or withheld as exempt. Id.

(quoting Tr. at 48). With respect to Category Four, the

information referred to in the Habib Letter, the government

represented that it had located three documents responsive to

the request and had released all three to plaintiff. Id. at 11

n.17. The magistrate pronounced himself satisfied with "the

responsiveness of the released information." Id. at 4.

Finally, the magistrate turned to the agencies' searches,

and to the affidavits, commonly known as Vaughn indices,3

that listed the withheld documents and justified their withholding under FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3. After reviewing

the agencies' declarations, the magistrate found the searches

reasonable, the Vaughn indices sufficiently detailed, and the

exemptions properly invoked. As a result, the magistrate

recommended that the district court grant the agencies'

motion for summary judgment.4

On September 29, 1998, after conducting a de novo review

of the summary judgment materials, the district court

adopted the magistrate's report in full. In addition, the court

rejected SAGE's argument that the magistrate should not

have accepted the representations of government counsel that

the documents produced and/or indexed were responsive to

plaintiff's requests, but should instead have required counsel

to file further affidavits. The court held that SAGE had

waived this argument by failing to assert it before the magistrate. See Students Against Genocide v. Department of

State, No. 96cv0667, slip op. at 3-4 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 1998)

("Dist. Ct. Op.").

After the district court granted summary judgment, but

before the time for appeal had run, plaintiff filed a motion to

__________

3 See Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 827-28 (D.C. Cir. 1973);

see also Mays v. DEA, 234 F.3d 1324, 1326 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

4 The magistrate also found that one document was covered by

Exemptions 5 (deliberative process privilege) and 6 (personal privacy). Those exemptions are not at issue on appeal.

USCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 6 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

reconsider based on further disclosure letters it had received

from the government. The district court issued an order

requiring the government to respond, and, after further

pleadings, again referred the matter to the magistrate. Upon

the government's second motion for summary judgment, the

magistrate determined that a component of the Department

of Defense, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), had found

and properly withheld a single document--a classified memorandum from the Director of the DIA to the Chairman of the

Joint Chiefs of Staff. Students Against Genocide v. Dep't of

State, 50 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 1999) ("Second Mag. Rep't").

The district court denied SAGE's motion for reconsideration

of its first summary judgment order, and, on July 22, 1999,

adopted the magistrate's recommendation to grant the government's second motion for summary judgment. SAGE

then filed the instant appeal.5

II

FOIA requires federal agencies to disclose, upon request,

broad classes of agency records unless the records are covered by the statute's exemptions. See 5 U.S.C.

s 552(a)(3)(A), (b). In a suit brought to compel production,

an agency is entitled to summary judgment if no material

facts are in dispute and if it demonstrates "that each document that falls within the class requested either has been

produced ... or is wholly exempt from the Act's inspection

requirements." Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339, 352 (D.C. Cir.

1978); see Billington v. Dep't of Justice, 233 F.3d 581, 583-84

__________

5 SAGE filed its notice of appeal two days after the deadline set

by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B). The district

court granted SAGE's timely motion to extend the time for appeal

under Rule 4(a)(5), which authorizes district courts to grant an

extension upon a showing of "excusable neglect." We review such

orders on an abuse of discretion standard, see Johnson v. Lehman,

679 F.2d 918, 919-20 (D.C. Cir. 1982), and we reject the government's suggestion that the district court's determination of "excusable neglect" constituted such an abuse. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co.

v. Brunswick Ass'n, 507 U.S. 380, 388 (1993); Marx v. Loral Corp.,

87 F.3d 1049, 1054 (9th Cir. 1996).

USCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 7 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

(D.C. Cir. 2000). Moreover, in national security cases like

this one, "Congress has instructed the courts to accord 'substantial weight' to agency affidavits." Goland, 607 F.2d at

352; see also Abbotts v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 766

F.2d 604, 606 (D.C. Cir. 1985).

The two FOIA exemptions at issue in this case are Exemptions 1 and 3. Exemption 1 declares that FOIA is inapplicable to 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."

5 U.S.C. s 552(b)(1). To support its Exemption 1 claims, the

government invoked Executive Order 12,958, which authorizes the classification of (inter alia) information that concerns

"intelligence sources or methods,"6 and Executive Order

12,951, which specifies that imagery acquired by space-based

national intelligence reconnaissance systems "shall be kept

secret in the interests of national defense and foreign policy

until deemed otherwise by the Director of Central Intelligence."7 FOIA Exemption 3 applies to matters "specifically

exempted from disclosure by [a] statute" other than FOIA. 5

U.S.C. s 552(b)(3). To support its Exemption 3 claims, the

government invoked the National Security Act of 1947, which

provides that the Director of Central Intelligence shall "protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure." 50 U.S.C. s 403-3(c)(6); see Miller v. Casey, 730

F.2d 773, 777 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (holding that this provision of

the Act supports Exemption 3).8

__________

6 Exec. Order No. 12,958, s 1.5(c), 60 Fed. Reg. 19,825 (Apr. 17,

1995), reprinted in 50 U.S.C. s 435.

7 Exec. Order No. 12,951, s 2, 60 Fed. Reg. 10,789 (Feb. 22,

1995), reprinted in 50 U.S.C. s 435.

8 The CIA also invoked the Central Intelligence Agency Information Act of 1984, 50 U.S.C. s 431, in support of its claim to

protection under Exemption 3. As the government notes, however,

we need not consider SAGE's challenge to the applicability of that

Act because the agency invoked the National Security Act for the

same photographs.

USCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 8 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

In the following Parts, we consider SAGE's challenges to

the adequacy of the agencies' responses to the three request

categories still at issue in this litigation. We review the

district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. See AlFayed v. CIA, No. 00-5457, 2001 WL 788094, at *6 (D.C. Cir.

2001).

III

SAGE's Category One request, as clarified during the

litigation, sought the satellite and aerial (airplane) photographs of the Srebrenica area that Ambassador Albright

actually displayed to the United Nations Security Council on

August 10, 1995. In response to this request, the government

released fourteen aerial photographs, two of which it specifically identified as photographs displayed by the Ambassador.

All other responsive photographs were withheld on grounds

of national security, pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3.9

The government confirmed that one of the withheld documents was the photograph of 600 people crowded into a

soccer field, as referred to in the New York Times article.

First Mag. Rep't, 1998 WL 699074, at *4. The CIA is the

only agency currently withholding records responsive to Category One.

SAGE has three objections to the manner in which the

agencies have responded to its Category One request. We

consider those objections below.

__________

9 The government stated that any satellite imagery that existed

was protected from disclosure under Exemptions 1 and 3, but that

it could neither confirm nor deny the existence of such imagery.

Strickland Decl. at 6. We have held such a response, commonly

referred to as a Glomar response, to be "appropriate where an

acknowledgment that records exist would provide the requester

with the very information the exemption is designed to protect."

Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885, 894 n.8 (D.C.

Cir. 1995); see Phillippi v. CIA, 546 F.2d 1009, 1015 (D.C. Cir.

1976) (remanding for further proceedings case in which the CIA

refused to confirm or deny the existence of materials relating to a

vessel called the Glomar Explorer). On appeal, SAGE raises no

issues regarding the government's assertion of a Glomar response.

USCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 9 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

A

Plaintiff first suggests that the agencies must not have

found and/or released all responsive photographs, because

they have not expressly said so by affidavit. The magistrate,

however, obtained and accepted the representation of agency

counsel that the photographs released to SAGE, together

with those withheld as exempt, constitute all photographs

responsive to plaintiff's Category One request. First Mag.

Rep't, 1998 WL 699074, at *3-4. Government counsel made

the same representation to this court at oral argument.

In the district court, plaintiff objected to the magistrate's

report on the ground that the magistrate should not have

accepted counsel's representations, but instead should have

required the agencies to file additional affidavits to the same

effect. The district court rejected this argument, holding

that plaintiff had waived it by failing to raise it before the

magistrate. Dist. Ct. Op. at 3-4.10 In this court, plaintiff's

opening brief did not challenge the district court's holding of

waiver. Although plaintiff did address the issue in its reply,

we have repeatedly held that an argument first made in a

reply brief ordinarily comes too late for our consideration,

and we see no reason to depart from that rule here. See, e.g.,

__________

10 The court stated:

Plaintiffs neither requested during the hearing, nor in the

three intervening months between the hearing and the Report

and Recommendation, that the Court or the Magistrate Judge

direct defendants to provide affidavits containing the declarations made on the record regarding the adequacy of the search

and the responsiveness of the information released and withheld.

Id. at 2-3. In support of its conclusion that this failure waived the

objection, the district court cited Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421,

1426 (10th Cir. 1996) ("Issues raised for the first time in objections

to the magistrate judge's recommendation are deemed waived."),

and Paterson-Leitch Co. v. Massachusetts Mun. Wholesale Elec.

Co., 840 F.2d 985, 990-91 (1st Cir. 1988) ("[A]n unsuccessful party is

not entitled as of right to de novo review by the judge of an

argument never seasonably raised before the magistrate.").

Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Washington v. EPA, 86 F.3d

1214, 1221 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ("By failing to make any specific

objection until their reply brief, petitioners deprived the

[respondents] of the opportunity to respond. To prevent this

..., we have generally held that issues not raised until the

reply brief are waived.").

B

SAGE's second objection to the government's Category

One response relates to the photographs withheld by the

CIA. SAGE does not contest that those photographs were,

at least initially, properly classified and exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3. See First Mag. Rep't,

1998 WL 699704, at *8. It contends, however, that in light of

the way the government subsequently treated those photoUSCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 10 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

graphs, any otherwise applicable exemptions have been

waived.11 This argument has two variations.

1

SAGE first argues that since the government did release

fourteen photographs, thereby acknowledging that their disclosure would not harm the national security, it cannot plausibly assert that disclosure of the remaining photos would be

injurious. Moreover, SAGE contends that even if disclosure

of the remaining photos would be harmful, whatever damage

their release could do has already been done by the disclosure

of the fourteen.

We disagree. The fact that some "information resides in

the public domain does not eliminate the possibility that

further disclosures can cause harm to intelligence sources,

methods and operations." Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755,

__________

11 The district court ruled that SAGE had waived this waiver

argument by failing to raise it before the magistrate. Dist. Ct. Op.

at 3. However, because the government concedes that "plaintiffs'

counsel did appear to raise this argument" at the magistrate

hearing, we consider it here. Govt Br. at 57 n.7.

USCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 11 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

766 (D.C. Cir. 1990). The CIA's affidavit provided a detailed

description of the risk to intelligence sources and methods

posed by release of reconnaissance imagery. See Strickland

Decl. at 5-15. Of special concern was the risk that professional image analysts would be able to combine a photograph

with other known information to determine the technical

capabilities of the reconnaissance system that produced it,

and that once those capabilities were determined, foreign

governments would be able "to take countermeasures to

conceal activities of interest to U.S. foreign policymakers."

Id. at 9. The CIA's expert averred that the released photographs were "individually reviewed" for these concerns, and

were released only after it was determined that "release of

these ... particular images would not damage the national

security." Id. at 15. He concluded, however, that release of

any withheld documents "reasonably could be expected to

result in" such damage. Id.

The assessment of harm to intelligence sources and methods "is entrusted to the Director of Central Intelligence, not

to the courts." Fitzgibbon, 911 F.2d at 766. Moreover,

particularly because the government did release numerous

photographs, we see no reason to question its good faith in

withholding the remaining photographs on national security

grounds. Accordingly, we reject SAGE's contention that by

releasing some photographs to plaintiff, the government

waived its right to withhold any others. Cf. Military Audit

Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 753-54 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (noting

that penalizing an agency for voluntarily declassifying documents would "work mischief" by creating an incentive against

disclosure).

2

SAGE also argues that Ambassador Albright waived the

government's right to invoke the FOIA exemptions by displaying the withheld photographs to the delegates of the

foreign governments that are members of the Security Council. Once those delegates saw the photographs, SAGE arUSCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 12 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

gues, any legitimate national security interest in keeping

them secret was lost.

This circuit has held that the government may not rely on

an otherwise valid exemption to justify withholding information that is already in the "public domain." See Cottone v.

Reno, 193 F.3d 550, 554-55 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Fitzgibbon v.

CIA, 911 F.2d at 765-66; Afshar v. Dep't of State, 702 F.2d

1125, 1130-31 (D.C. Cir. 1983). We have noted, however, that

"while the logic of FOIA postulates that an exemption can

serve no purpose once information ... becomes public, we

must be confident that the information sought is truly public

and that the requester receive no more than what is publicly

available before we find a waiver." Cottone v. Reno, 193 F.3d

at 555 (internal quotation and citation omitted). For the

public domain doctrine to apply, the specific information

sought must have already been "disclosed and preserved in a

permanent public record." Id. at 554; see Davis v. Dep't of

Justice, 968 F.2d 1276, 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

The photographs in question here plainly do not fall within

that doctrine. They were not released to the general public;

only the Security Council delegates saw them. In fact, the

photographs were not "released" at all. Although Ambassador Albright displayed them to the delegates, she retained

custody, and none left the U.N. chamber. See Grafeld Decl.

at 19. Hence, there is no "permanent public record" of the

photographs. See Cottone, 193 F.3d at 554.

SAGE acknowledges that this case does not fall within the

letter of the public domain doctrine, but urges that it represents merely "a slight variation" on the theme. SAGE Br. at

24. Although the photographs were not released into the

public domain, plaintiff argues that they were displayed to the

very parties against whom the exemption was intended to

provide protection: foreign governments, including some that

cannot be characterized as American allies. SAGE contends

that by disclosing the photographs to the members of the

Security Council, the government has already let "the cat ...

out of the bag," and whatever damage disclosure might do

has already been done. SAGE Br. at 24. Surely, SAGE

USCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 13 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

suggests, further release to American citizens and organizations cannot pose greater risk to the national security than

release to "foreign governments, which are more likely to

convey [classified imagery] to our erstwhile enemies than

[SAGE]." Id.

Again we disagree, for three reasons. First, we note that

it is irrelevant that the plaintiff requesters are Americans, as

a disclosure made to any FOIA requester is effectively a

disclosure to the world at large. The courts lack authority to

limit the dissemination of documents once they are released

under FOIA, or to choose selectively among recipients. See

Swan v. SEC, 96 F.3d 498, 500 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also

Maricopa Audubon Soc'y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1082,

1088 n.5 (9th Cir. 1997); 1 James T. O'Reilly, Federal

Information Disclosure ss 9:37-:44 (3d ed. 2000). Hence, we

must assume that if the requested photographs are released,

they will eventually make their way to foreign governments

and others who may have interests that diverge from those of

the United States.12

Second, we find nothing unreasonable in the government's

contention that it may have affirmative foreign policy reasons

for sharing sensitive information with some foreign governments and not others. As in this case, the government may

well decide that its foreign policy objectives--here, the garnering of support for opposition to ongoing genocide--require

disclosing information to member countries of the United

Nations Security Council that may be in a position to assist

the United States in its efforts, yet at the same time require

__________

12 See Swan, 96 F.3d at 500 ("Agencies, and hence courts, must

evaluate the risk of disclosing records to some particular FOIA

requester not simply in terms of what the requester might do with

the information, but also in terms of what anyone else might do

with it."); see also Military Audit Project, 656 F.2d at 730 n.11

(noting that the identity of the FOIA requester is immaterial and

that, "for example, there is no statutory bar to the military attache

of the Soviet embassy filing FOIA requests for information from

the CIA and the FBI on the same basis as a United States citizen").

USCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 14 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

protecting that information from disclosure to other countries

that may actively oppose those policy objectives.

Third, it is significant that Ambassador Albright displayed,

but did not distribute, the photographs in question. The

government asserts that this display was unlikely to compromise the technical capabilities of its reconnaissance systems,

because the U.N. delegates were not likely to possess the

expert qualifications required to analyze the photographs,

particularly during such a brief viewing. Public (and permanent) release of the documents, by contrast, would offer

professional imagery analysts the opportunity to make detailed examinations. It is precisely on a point like this "that a

court, lacking expertise in the substantive matters at hand,

must give substantial weight to agency statements, so long as

they are plausible and not called into question by contrary

evidence or evidence of agency bad faith." Halperin v. CIA,

629 F.2d 144, 149 (D.C. Cir. 1980); see Frugone v. CIA, 169

F.3d 772, 775 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Hayden v. Nat'l Sec. Agency,

608 F.2d 1381, 1388 (D.C. Cir. 1979). As the government's

assessment is plausible, and as there is no contrary evidence

or evidence of bad faith, we accept its representations and

reject the suggestion that the display of the photographs to

the Security Council waived the government's right to withhold them from release under FOIA.

C

Finally, SAGE contends that even if the agencies do not

want to disclose the photographs in their present state, they

should produce new photographs at a different resolution in

order to mask the capabilities of the reconnaissance systems

that took them. But although agencies are required to

provide "any reasonably segregable," non-exempt portion of

an existing record, 5 U.S.C. s 552(b), they are not required to

create new documents. See Yeager v. DEA, 678 F.2d 315, 321

(D.C. Cir. 1982) ("It is well settled that an agency is not

required by FOIA to create a document that does not exist in

order to satisfy a request." (citing NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck

& Co., 421 U.S. 132, 161-62 (1975))). We are therefore

USCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 15 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

without authority to direct the government to adopt SAGE's

"compromise" suggestion.

In sum, we find no merit in SAGE's objections to the

manner in which the agencies handled its Category One

request, and affirm the district court's grant of summary

judgment as to that issue.

IV

In its Category Two request, again as clarified during the

litigation, SAGE sought documents, other than photographs,

that were "shared" or "specifically referred to" by Ambassador Albright during her presentation to the Security Council

on August 10, 1995. In response to this request, the State

Department released 46 documents in their entirety and 32 in

part, Grafeld Decl. at 9; the National Security Agency (NSA)

released part of one document that State had referred to it

for review, Grantham Decl. at 2; and the CIA released three

documents and three maps, Strickland Decl. at 4. Neither

the Department of Defense nor the DIA released any documents, Defs.' Mot. for Partial Summ. J. at 10. All remaining

responsive documents were withheld as exempt from production under FOIA. In response to SAGE's clarification that it

sought documents Albright actually shared with the members

of the Security Council, the government explained that Albright did not share any documents; she shared only information, and the documents that the agencies designated as

responsive were those containing that information. Gov't Br.

at 48 (citing Mag. Hr'g Tr. at 36-40, 43-47).13

__________

13 The distinction is important and is, presumably, the reason

that SAGE does not argue on appeal that Albright waived the

government's FOIA exemptions by discussing the information contained in the documents, as it does argue with respect to her

display of the photographs considered in Part III supra. Cf.

Public Citizen v. Dep't of State, 11 F.3d 198, 201 (D.C. Cir. 1993)

("The law of this circuit provides that an agency official does not

waive FOIA Exemption 1 by publicly discussing the general subject

matter of documents which are otherwise properly exempt from

disclosure under that exemption.").

USCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 16 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

We consider SAGE's objections to the State Department's

response to this category in Section A below, and consider its

objections to the other agencies' responses in Section B.

A

SAGE questions the adequacy of the search the State

Department conducted for the Category Two documents. To

merit summary judgment on the adequacy of a search, an

"agency must demonstrate beyond material doubt that its

search was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant

documents." Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Service, 71

F.3d 885, 890 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (internal quotation omitted).

The agency "must make a good faith effort to conduct a

search for the requested records, using methods which can be

reasonably expected to produce the information requested."

Id. (internal quotation omitted). Summary judgment may be

based on affidavit, if the declaration sets forth sufficiently

detailed information "for a court to determine if the search

was adequate." Id.

The State Department's affidavit meets this standard. The

Department declared that it searched twelve separate records

systems, including those of several bureaus in Washington,

three American embassies in Europe, and two American

missions to the United Nations and other international organizations. Grafeld Decl. at 7-8. The declaration also states

that the search resulted in the retrieval and review of 137

documents, and notes that of these, 46 were released in their

entirety, 32 were released in part, 9 were withheld in full, 21

were transferred to other agencies for review and direct

response, and 29 were ultimately deemed non-responsive. Id.

at 9. Moreover, the government has further represented that

the Department produced all the documents it could reasonably locate containing the information SAGE sought in its

Category Two request. Gov't Br. at 48 (citing Mag. Hr'g Tr.

at 36-40, 43-47).

SAGE argues that "[w]hile it might usually be reasonable

to take an agency affidavit as indicative of a comprehensive

search and retrieval of 'responsive' information, this usual

USCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 17 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

course of analysis must be discarded where an agency references so many documents as 'responsive' when those documents, on their face, do not comport with the FOIA request

at issue." SAGE Br. at 15-16. SAGE asserts that documents responsive to its Category Two request could not have

been generated earlier than July 10, 1995, the approximate

date when Bosnian Serb forces overran Srebrenica, nor later

than August 10, the date of Ambassador Albright's presentation. Focusing on the withheld documents described in the

State Department's Vaughn index, SAGE states that only

seven fall within the appropriate date range. SAGE rejects

the responsiveness of even those seven, on the ground that

the Vaughn index descriptions do not specify that the documents were actually used in Ambassador Albright's presentation. All of this, SAGE contends, shows "a serious problem

of bad faith" on the part of the State Department. SAGE Br.

at 15.

We do not agree that the evidence SAGE points to amounts

to a showing of bad faith. The withheld documents were not

the only ones turned up in the State Department's search;

the Department also released numerous documents, including

significant ones that fall within the requested date range and

are responsive to plaintiff's request. One document, for

example, is a report from the Assistant Secretary of State for

Human Rights, who traveled to Bosnia on July 30-August 1,

1995 and received eyewitness accounts of mass executions in

the relevant areas. Indeed, the State Department even

produced the six-page, single-spaced "script" prepared for

Ambassador Albright's use during her presentation to the

Security Council. Although SAGE dismisses the script as

nonresponsive to its request because it is merely a "secondhand account" of the information used by the Ambassador, we

regard the Department's production of the document as quite

forthcoming.

Further, the fact that many of the released and indexed

documents fall outside the July 10-August 10, 1995 date

range does not suggest an effort by State to hide a needle in

a haystack, as SAGE asserts. As the magistrate explained,

the parties simply had different understandings of the scope

of SAGE's Category Two request. Because that request

sought "documents containing the allegedly 'sensitive inforUSCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 18 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

mation' shared" by Ambassador Albright on August 10, 1995,

the government fairly read it as requesting documents referencing that information even if they post-dated the Ambassador's presentation. Moreover, SAGE's Category Three request, not dismissed until later in the litigation, sought "[a]ny

documentation of the above nature [referring to Categories

One and Two] pertaining to the commission of war crimes,

genocide and atrocities in Bosnia from 1993 to the present."

J.A. at 13. This request expressly called for documents dated

both prior to July 10, 1995 and after August 10, 1995, and

hence the fact that State produced and indexed such documents is not an indication of bad faith.

In sum, that the Department gave SAGE more information

than it requested does not undermine the conclusion that its

search was reasonable and adequate.

B

In this Section we address SAGE's challenges to the other

agencies' disposition of its Category Two request.

SAGE challenges the decision of the NSA to withhold most

of a two-page addendum to a State Department document,

which State referred to the NSA for review because it

originated with the agency. The NSA released two introductory sentences of the addendum that describe the subject

matter of the classified paragraphs. See J.A. at 134. The

NSA explained that it withheld the remainder of the document because:

The information at issue identifies the targets whose

communications have been exploited. To disclose any of

this information would inform those targets of their

vulnerabilities and of NSA's specific capabilities, sources

and methods. If those targets learned or suspected that

their communications were being successfully exploited,

they would quickly act to engage countermeasures to

deny access to those communications by changing their

methods.

USCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 19 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Grantham Decl. at 6-7. This justification for nondisclosure is

sufficiently specific, in light of the substantial weight owed to

agency explanations in the context of national security, to

qualify for withholding under Exemptions 1 and 3. Cf.

Hayden, 608 F.2d at 1388 (regarding as "inherently logical"

NSA's contention that disclosing the electromagnetic channels

it monitors would impair its ability to collect intelligence

information).

With respect to the CIA, SAGE contends that the agency's

declaration is ambiguous as to whether it found any documents responsive to its Category Two request. We do not

find the declaration ambiguous. It clearly states that the

CIA released eleven aerial images, three documents, and

three maps in response to SAGE's Category One and Two

requests combined, and that any remaining CIA records were

withheld as exempt. See Strickland Decl. at 3-4.

Finally, SAGE contends that it remains unclear whether

documents withheld by the DIA are properly subject to

exemption. A reading of the DIA's declarations makes plain,

however, that the DIA located and withheld only one responsive document, a five-page memorandum from the Director of

the DIA to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding "Evidence of Mass Murder of Srebrenica Muslims." See

Second Richardson Decl. at 2; Third Richardson Decl. at 2.

We agree with the magistrate's conclusion that the DIA met

its burden of establishing that release of the document would

reveal the classified sources and methods used to collect the

information it contains, and thus "enable foreign authorities

to ... take counter measures which would damage the ability

of the U.S. government to acquire" further information. Second Mag. Rep't, 50 F. Supp. 2d at 23 (citing Third Richardson

Decl. at 5); see id. at 26 & n.1.

V

SAGE's Category Four request sought information specifically referred to in a letter that Michael Habib, Director of

the State Department's Office of Eastern European Affairs,

sent to Beth Stephens, of the Center for Constitutional

USCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 20 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Rights, on March 24, 1993. The Habib Letter stated that the

United States had reported information concerning "rape and

other grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions" to the

United Nations. Habib Letter (quoted in Kadic v. Karadzic,

70 F.3d at 250 n.10). In its briefs on appeal, SAGE contended that State had not produced a single document containing

the referenced information.

Our resolution of SAGE's Category Four request has been

greatly simplified by developments that ensued after the

briefs in this case were filed. On September 26, 2000, shortly

before oral argument was scheduled to take place in this

court, the government moved to dismiss SAGE's claim with

respect to Category Four on the ground of mootness. The

government stated that it had recently discovered an October

29, 1996 communication from the State Department to

SAGE's attorney, enclosing all documents responsive to

SAGE's Category Four request and withholding none. The

government sent SAGE a new copy of the 1996 communication and its enclosed documents. SAGE's counsel replied

that it was not clear whether the documents were truly

responsive to its request, and that he had "no record or

memory" of having received the documents in 1996. Appellants' Opp'n to Mot. for Conditional, Partial Dismissal at 4-5.

On December 12, 2000, after this case was argued, government counsel advised the court of yet another development: a

November 8, 2000 statement, written by Michael Habib,

declaring that six of the documents produced to SAGE in

October 1996 and retransmitted prior to oral argument in

September 2000, constituted all of the documents to which he

had referred in the Habib Letter. After examining Habib's

post-argument statement, SAGE advised us that it was now

"satisf[ied] ... that the documents produced in September of

2000 ... include the documents to which Mr. Habib referred

in his letter to Beth Stephens [and] so are actually responsive

to Category Four of SAGE's FOIA request." Appellants'

Resp. to Appellees' Letter Concerning the Merits of a Pending Mot. at 2.

USCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 21 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

The government contends that whether or not SAGE received the documents in October 1996, the pre-argument

transmittal of all documents responsive to the Category Four

request moots the litigation over the merits of that category.

We agree. Courts have "jurisdiction to enjoin the agency

from withholding agency records and to order the production

of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant," but if the government produces all responsive

records, FOIA provides no further production-related relief.

5 U.S.C. s 552(a)(4)(B); see Cotton v. Heyman, 63 F.3d 1115,

1118 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Webb v. Dep't of Health and Human

Servs., 696 F.2d 101, 107-08 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

SAGE argues, however, that it is still entitled to attorney's

fees and costs for its efforts to obtain the Category Four

material. See 5 U.S.C. s 552(a)(4)(E) (authorizing the district

court to "assess against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any

case ... in which the complainant has substantially prevailed"); Webb, 696 F.2d at 107-08 ("Granting full access to

the requested documents ... terminates a FOIA action (except possibly for attorneys' fees)."). The district court did

not address the issue, and the government states that, "in

order to determine if plaintiffs are entitled to" attorney's fees

and costs, "a factual record would be helpful concerning when

the State Department actually released the records sought."

Reply to Appellants' Resp. to Appellees' Letter Concerning

the Merits of a Pending Mot. at 3. The government suggests

a remand for that limited purpose, and since the parties have

not briefed the question of attorney's fees and costs, we agree

that a remand would be appropriate so that the district court

can consider the issue in the first instance.14

__________

14 We note that, after the parties completed their postargument submissions in the instant case, the Supreme Court

issued its opinion in Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West

Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 121 S.Ct.

1835 (2001). That case held that the term "prevailing party," as

employed in statutes authorizing the award of attorney's fees, does

not include "a party that has failed to secure a judgment on the

merits or a court-ordered consent decree, but has nonetheless

USCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 22 of 23
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

VI

We remand to the district court SAGE's request for attorney's fees and costs in connection with its Category Four

request. In all other respects, the district court's grant of

summary judgment to the agencies is affirmed.

__________

achieved the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a

voluntary change in the defendant's conduct." Id. at 1838. Because the parties have not briefed the question, we express no view

regarding the applicability of Buckhannon to SAGE's request for

attorney's fees.

USCA Case #99-5316 Document #615619 Filed: 08/07/2001 Page 23 of 23