Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02308/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02308-0/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

Case No.: 5:15-cv-02308-EJD

DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF INDEX 

OF WITHHELD DOCUMENTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TANIA MCCASH,

Plaintiff,

v.

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-02308-EJD 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

FOR PRODUCTION OF INDEX OF 

WITHHELD DOCUMENTS

Re: Dkt. No. 13

In this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), Plaintiff Tania McCash

moves for an order requiring the production of an index of withheld documents, or portions 

thereof, pursuant to Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973). See Docket Item No. 13. 

Defendants Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”), National Security Agency (“NSA”), and United 

States Department of Justice (collectively, the “Government”), oppose the motion. See Docket 

Item No. 16. The court finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to 

Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for August 27, 2015, is VACATED, 

and the court finds, concludes and orders as follows:

1. “The term ‘Vaughn index’ arises out of a District of Columbia Circuit decision

describing a helpful device for specifying documents not produced.” Fiduccia v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Justice, 185 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 1999). “[T]he purpose of the index is to afford the FOIA 

requester a meaningful opportunity to contest, and the district court an adequate opportunity to 

review, the soundness of the withholding.” Weiner v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 943 F.2d 972, 

977 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2. Production of a Vaughn index is not required in every FOIA case. Fiduccia, 185 

F.3d at 1042-43; see Minier v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 88 F.3d 796, 804 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(“[W]hen the affidavit submitted by an agency is sufficient to establish that the requested 

documents should not be disclosed, a Vaughn index is not required.”). Indeed, even under

Case 5:15-cv-02308-EJD Document 18 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 5:15-cv-02308-EJD

DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF INDEX 

OF WITHHELD DOCUMENTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Vaughn, an index of withheld documents is only necessary when there exists a factual dispute 

regarding whether the documents fall within a disclosure exception, and such dispute cannot be 

resolved based solely on agency affidavits. 484 F.2d at 827-28.

3. Here, the Government contends that it will be able to fully substantiate disclosure 

exemptions in an ensuing motion for summary judgment. To that end, the Government anticipates 

invoking FOIA Exemptions 1 and 31as well as an Executive Order, which it believes will result in 

a proper Glomar response.2 Since courts “routinely allow” agencies such as the CIA and the NSA 

“to give a Glomar Response in order to avoid identifying its methods or targets, and their 

activities” (Mosier v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, No. 2:13-cv-00744-MCE-KJN, 2013 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 169502, at *24, 2013 WL 6198197 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2013)), it is premature to order the 

production of a Vaughn index without the benefit of reviewing the adequacy of the Government’s 

summary judgment motion. Only after assessing the affidavits in support of a Glomar response

can the court determine whether a Vaughn index is necessary and appropriate. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an order requiring the Government to produce a 

Vaughn index (Docket Item No. 13) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to being renewed, if 

appropriate, after the Government submits its anticipated motion for summary judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

 

1

Exemption 1 applies to national security information, and specifically exempts from disclosure

documents 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. § 552(b)(1). Exemption 3 applies to 

records “specifically exempted from disclosure by statute.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3). 

2 A “Glomar response” is a refusal to confirm or deny the existence of records. Hunt v. Cent. 

Intelligence Agency, 981 F.2d 1116, 1118 (9th Cir. 1992)

Case 5:15-cv-02308-EJD Document 18 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 2