Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05439/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05439-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony P.X. Bothwell
Plaintiff
John O. Brennan
Defendant
Central Intelligence Agency
Defendant

Document Text:

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

ANTHONY P.X. BOTHWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN O. BRENNAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-05439-JSC 

ORDER GRANTING RENEWED 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 52

Plaintiff Anthony P.X. Bothwell (“Bothwell”), an attorney proceeding pro se, brings this 

action against Defendant Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) for its alleged noncompliance with 

Bothwell’s request for information under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. 

§ 552. Bothwell seeks an order compelling the release of information related to individuals 

purportedly connected to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert F. 

Kennedy. (Dkt. No. 1 at 5-6.) The Court earlier concluded that the CIA issued a proper “Glomar 

Response” under Exemption 3 of the FOIA and that the CIA’s search was adequate and granted 

summary judgment to the CIA except for its search for documents generated in July 1976 

regarding Johnny Roselli. Bothwell v. CIA, No. 13-cv-05439-JSC, 2015 WL 3523212, at *1 (N.D. 

Cal. June 4, 2015) (“Bothwell II”); Bothwell v. CIA, No. 13-cv-05439-JSC, 2014 WL 5077186, at 

*1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2014) (“Bothwell I”). As for the July 1976 Roselli documents, the CIA had 

initially excluded from its search any operational files under the meaning of 50 U.S.C. 

§ 3141(c)—as described in the Court’s earlier Order—but the Court concluded that the CIA must 

search for responsive documents among its operational files under the circumstances presented 

here. Bothwell II, 2015 WL 3523212, at *1. 

Now pending before the Court is the CIA’s second renewed motion for summary judgment 

Case 3:13-cv-05439-JSC Document 57 Filed 11/03/15 Page 1 of 9
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

regarding the adequacy of its search for the July 1976 Roselli documents among the agency’s 

operational files. (Dkt. No. 52.) After carefully considering the parties’ submissions, the Court 

concludes that oral argument is not necessary, see N.D. Cal. L.R. 7-1(b), and that the CIA’s search 

for the July 1976 Roselli documents was adequate and therefore GRANTS the CIA’s second 

renewed motion for summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

The background of this case has already been explained in detail in the Court’s earlier 

order granting partial summary judgment for the CIA. Bothwell II, 2015 WL 3523212, at *1-2;

Bothwell I, 2014 WL 5077186, at *1-2. However, the background relevant to the sole remaining 

dispute is included here.

Plaintiff’s FOIA request sought “[a]ll records within the possession, custody, or control of 

the CIA, generated in July 1976 that relate to Johnny ROSELLI, a.k.a. John ROSELLI, a.k.a. 

Filippo SACCO.” (Dkt. No. 49-1 ¶ 3.) The CIA’s earlier declarations explained that the agency 

did not search for responsive documents among its operational files. And indeed, ordinarily such 

files are exempted from disclosure. However, in the Court’s Order granting in part the CIA’s first 

renewed motion for partial summary judgment, the Court concluded that Bothwell’s request 

triggered an exception to the operational files exemption: specifically, it implicated the specific 

subject matter of an investigation of the U.S. Senate Select Committee to Study Government 

Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (the “Church Committee”) into the CIA’s 

performance in connection with the Castro and Kennedy assassinations, and therefore the CIA was 

obligated to search for responsive documents in its operational files. Bothwell II, 2015 WL 

3523212, at *8 (explaining why an exception to the operational files exemption applied). 

Accordingly, the Court ordered the CIA to conduct a search of operational files reasonably

calculated to uncover records responsive to Plaintiff’s request for all records within the 

possession, custody, or control of the CIA, generated in July 1976 that relate to Johnny Roselli. 

Bothwell II, 2015 WL 3523212, at *9-10. 

Following that Order, the CIA conducted a search of operational files reasonably 

calculated to uncover records responsive to Plaintiff’s request. (See Dkt. No. 49-1 ¶ 3.) To 

Case 3:13-cv-05439-JSC Document 57 Filed 11/03/15 Page 2 of 9
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

describe its latest search, the CIA has submitted the Third Supplemental Declaration of Martha M. 

Lutz, Information Review Officer for the Litigation Information Review Office of the CIA. (Dkt. 

No. 49-1.) According to the Third Supplemental Lutz Declaration, the CIA’s latest efforts 

searched three different databases most likely to contain responsive operational files: (1) the NCS1

system of records database that houses records generated by the NCS, regardless of media, related 

to the collection of human intelligence and covert action; (2) an NCS database that maintains 

records related to covert employees; and (3) a compilation of indexes which catalogue archived 

CIA paper records. (Id. ¶ 3.) CIA policy regarding searches for archived paper records begins

with a database query, and if that search suggests the existence of paper files, then CIA staff 

retrieves the archived paper files to review them for individual responsive documents. (Dkt. No. 

30-1 ¶ 4.) Pursuant to CIA policy for searching archived paper records, the CIA queried the 

databases using a simple keyword search for the names and aliases for Roselli. (Dkt. No. 49-1; 

see also Dkt. No. 30-1 ¶ 4 (describing the CIA’s search terms).) Individuals who are experts in 

the NCS databases conducted the search of the three databases, which did not suggest the 

existence of any paper files pertaining to Roselli, so NCS staff did not pull any archived files to 

conduct a further search of paper records. (Dkt. No. 49-1 ¶ 3 & n.3; see also Dkt. No. 30-1 ¶ 4 

(noting that the CIA’s standard FOIA practices are to retrieve archived paper files and review 

them for responsive paper documents only when the compiled indexes suggest the existence of 

paper files likely to contain responsive records).) 

LEGAL STANDARD

The FOIA calls for “broad disclosure of Government records.” CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159, 

166 (1985). To ensure broad disclosure, the FOIA “gives individuals a judicially-enforceable 

right of access to government agency documents.” Lion Raisins v. Dep’t of Agric., 354 F.3d 1072, 

 

1 As set forth in the Court’s earlier Orders, the NCS is the National Clandestine Service, the CIA 

directorate “responsible for the clandestine collection of foreign intelligence from human 

sources[.]” Bothwell I, 2014 WL 5077186, at *4 (record citations omitted). According to Ms. 

Lutz, the CIA has since begun a reorganization plan of its directorates, and the NCS is now 

referred to as the Directorate of Operations. (Dkt. No. 49-1 ¶ 2 n.2.) The Lutz Declaration and 

this Order nonetheless refer to the NCS for the sake of consistency with prior orders in this case.

Case 3:13-cv-05439-JSC Document 57 Filed 11/03/15 Page 3 of 9
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1079 (9th Cir. 2004); 5 U.S.C. § 552. The FOIA specifically provides, in relevant part, that: 

“each agency, upon any request for records which (i) reasonably describes such records and (ii) 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.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). 

Summary judgment is the procedural vehicle by which nearly all FOIA cases are 

resolved.” Nat’l Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 388 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1094 (C.D. Cal. 

2005). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary judgment when “the movant 

shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 

317, 322 (1986). Unlike the typical summary judgment analysis, however, “in a FOIA case, we 

do not ask whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, because the facts are rarely in 

dispute.” Minier v. CIA, 88 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir. 1996). Indeed, courts are permitted to rule on 

summary judgment “solely on the basis of government affidavits.” Lion Raisins, 354 F.3d at 

1082. However, courts do not give government affidavits the “substantial weight” that they 

ordinarily receive if there is a showing of bad faith on the agency’s part. Hunt v. CIA, 981 F.2d 

1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 1992). In that case, the court must review the adequacy of the agency’s 

search with heightened scrutiny. Minier, 88 F.3d at 802.

To prevail on summary judgment, “the government must establish that its search for 

responsive documents was reasonable and that it has described with reasonable specificity the 

nature of [any] responsive documents.” Hiken v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 521 F. Supp. 2d 1047, 1054 

(N.D. Cal. 2007). The government may also avoid disclosure if it submits “a detailed affidavit 

showing that the information logically falls within one of the claimed [FOIA] exemptions.” 

Minier, 88 F.3d at 800.

DISCUSSION

The sole issue before the Court is the adequacy of the CIA’s search of archived CIA paper 

records for operational files relating to Roselli. The CIA bears the burden of establishing “that it 

has conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” Citizens 

Comm’n on Human Rights v. Food & Drug Admin., 45 F.3d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1995). The 

Case 3:13-cv-05439-JSC Document 57 Filed 11/03/15 Page 4 of 9
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“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. (emphasis in 

original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Lahr v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 

569 F.3d 965, 987 (9th Cir. 2009) (same). 

Courts assess the adequacy of an agency’s search using “a standard of reasonableness 

[that] depends, not surprisingly, upon the facts of each case.” Zemansky v. U.S. EPA, 767 F.2d 

569, 571 (9th Cir. 1985). “While there is no requirement that an agency search every record 

system, the search must be conducted in good faith using methods that are likely to produce the 

information requested if it exists.” Lawyers’ Comm. for Civil Rights of San Francisco Bay Area v. 

U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 534 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1130 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (citations omitted). If the 

agency conducts such a search, the search is adequate. See Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 

180 F.3d 321, 325 (D.C. Cir. 1999). A search is not inadequate merely because it fails to uncover 

every existing responsive document. Safecard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 

1991); see also Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311, 315 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (“[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.”). Thus, an agency is not “required to 

reorganize its files in response to a plaintiff’s request in the form in which it was made.” Church 

of Scientology v. IRS, 792 F.2d 146, 150-51 (D.C. Cir. 1986). Instead, a search is inadequate only 

when the agency fails to “show, with reasonable detail, that the search method . . . was reasonably

calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 

(D.C. Cir. 1990).

“In demonstrating the adequacy of the search, the agency may rely upon reasonably 

detailed, nonconclusory affidavits submitted in good faith.” Zemansky, 767 F.2d at 571. Thus, a 

court may grant summary judgment in favor of an agency on the basis of agency affidavits if they 

contain reasonable specificity of detail rather than merely conclusory statements, and if they are 

not called into question by contradictory evidence in the record or by evidence of agency bad 

faith.” Grand Central P’ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 478 (2d Cir. 1999) (emphasis in 

original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Any such evidence of agency bad faith 

Case 3:13-cv-05439-JSC Document 57 Filed 11/03/15 Page 5 of 9
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

must be non-speculative to rebut the presumption of good faith accorded to the agency’s affidavit,

Lawyers’ Comm. for Civil Rights, 534 F. Supp. 2d at 1137; hypothetical assertions are not enough. 

Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 67 n.13.

Here, the CIA has submitted the Third Supplemental Lutz Declaration to describe the 

CIA’s latest search. (See Dkt. No. 49-1.) A CIA affidavit that “lays out in a detailed fashion: (1) 

the files that were searched; (2) the reasons for searching those files; (3) the search terms 

employed; and (4) the search method used” is sufficient to show “that the search was reasonable 

and thorough in both time and method.” Porter v. CIA, 778 F. Supp. 2d 60, 69 (D.D.C. 2011); see 

also Lawyers’ Comm. for Civil Rights, 534 F. Supp. 2d at 1131 (“[A]ffidavits or declarations 

submitted by the agency . . . must describe what records were searched, by whom, and through 

what process.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). To satisfactorily explain the 

search method used, the affidavit “must detail the files searched and the general scheme of the 

agency file system.” Rashad Ahmad Refaat El Badrawi v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 583 F. Supp. 

2d 285, 300 (D. Conn. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Church of 

Scientology, 792 F.2d at 151 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (noting that an affidavit should “identify the 

searched files and describe at least generally the structure of the agency’s file system”). In other 

words, the agency must explain “how the agency determined which records systems and files were 

relevant.” Nat’l Sec. Counselors v. CIA, 960 F. Supp. 2d 101, 154 (D.D.C. 2013). In contrast, the 

description of a CIA search will be inadequate where it fails to “explain in reasonable detail the 

scope and method of the search conducted by the agency sufficient to demonstrate compliance 

with the obligations imposed by the FOIA.” Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108, 1122 (D.C. Cir. 

2007).

Here, the Third Supplemental Lutz Declaration, particularly when read in conjunction with 

the earlier Lutz Declarations, provides sufficient detail to answer all of the questions above with 

respect to the CIA’s search responsive documents among its operational files. The declaration 

sufficiently describes the databases searched, the search terms employed, provides an explanation 

of the agency’s database systems more generally, and identifies the persons who conducted the 

search. Thus, the Third Supplemental Lutz Declaration is sufficient to meet the CIA’s burden of 

Case 3:13-cv-05439-JSC Document 57 Filed 11/03/15 Page 6 of 9
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

laying out in a detailed fashion the CIA’s search, and demonstrates that the search was adequate. 

See Hamdan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, NO. 13-55172, 2015 WL 4773499, at *6 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 

2015) (concluding that the FBI’s search of databases where it maintains records for use in 

investigation “using many variations of the terms suggested by Plaintiffs to account for spelling or 

other inconsistencies, was a diligent search for . . . documents in the places in which they might be 

expected to be found”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Bothwell does not appear to take issue with the CIA’s search in terms of the databases 

selected or the search terms used. Instead, he raises a single specific challenge to the adequacy of 

the agency’s search: that when the agency’s database inquiries yielded no responsive results, the 

CIA nevertheless should have had its employees search and review the actual, hard-copy paper 

files on the Church Committee to look for documents about Roselli. (See Dkt. No. 53 at 2 

(arguing that it is “reasonable to require the CIA to look at one month’s worth of paper records in 

its Church Committee file to unveil any operations records therein regarding Roselli”); id. at 4 

(contending that it would not take CIA staff much time “to search one month’s collection of paper 

files on the Church Committee investigation”); id. at 5 (seeking an order directing the CIA to 

manually search paper documents “in its files related to the [Church Committee]”).) The 

problems with this argument are threefold. 

First, Plaintiff’s FOIA request did not request Church Committee documents in particular, 

but rather documents about Roselli. Thus, if the CIA had limited its search to Church Committee 

documents, that would not have been reasonable. And the CIA’s database searches would include 

documents that mention Roselli in conjunction with the Church Committee investigation, since it 

used Roselli’s name as a search term. In other words, any documents relating to both Roselli and

the Church Committee would fall within the scope of the search, and any documents solely about 

the Church Committee but not mentioning Roselli would not be responsive to Bothwell’s request. 

Moreover, Bothwell’s argument relies on the unsupported assertion that the CIA maintains 

particular paper files dedicated solely to the Church Committee investigation. Bothwell’s 

speculation that separate, stand-alone Church Committee files exist is not enough to overcome the 

presumption of good faith entitled to the Third Supplemental Lutz Declaration, and thus that the 

Case 3:13-cv-05439-JSC Document 57 Filed 11/03/15 Page 7 of 9
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

CIA’s search would have uncovered responsive operational files regarding Roselli. See Oglesby, 

920 F.2d at 67 n.13; Lawyers’ Comm. for Civil Rights, 534 F. Supp. 2d at 1137. And if there are 

no such stand-alone files, the CIA is not required to reorganize its files to compile Church 

Committee-specific files. See Church of Scientology, 792 F.2d at 150-51.

Bothwell’s reliance on ACLU of New Jersey v. Department of Justice, No. 11-2553, 2012 

WL 4660515 (D.N.J. Oct. 2, 2012), misses the mark. In that case, the ACLU made a FOIA 

request to the FBI for documents related to the agency’s use of race and ethnicity in conducting 

investigations. Id. at *1. The FBI conducted searches of various databases using a range of search 

terms. The agency directed its personnel to “review [its] database systems as well as paper or 

manual files” for relevant documents. Id. at *2, *4. The district court concluded that the agency’s 

search was adequate. Id. at *5. But ACLU of New Jersey does not describe how the agency 

searched the paper or manual files, nor does it stand for the proposition that Bothwell urges: that 

physical search of paper files following keyword-based searching in databases where those files 

are archived is required to render a search adequate.

Bothwell’s reliance on National Day Laborer Organizing Network v. United States 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, 877 F. Supp. 2d 87 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), fares no 

better. Bothwell emphasizes the district court’s comment that “[s]imple keyword searching is 

often not enough” to render a search adequate. Id. at 108-09. That may be so. But National Day 

Laborer Organizing Network involved “the largest FOIA search in the history of the” agency, 

where the vastness of the search made it unclear whether certain search terms would actually 

capture all responsive documents. Id. at 111. There, the court found the search inadequate 

because the agency had failed to disclose the search terms used at all and directed the parties to 

meet and confer to choose search terms. Id. at 110. Not so here, where the request at issue is 

limited to documents regarding Roselli, the CIA searched using variations of Roselli’s name and 

aliases, and Bothwell has not actually challenged the search terms used.

Finally, Plaintiff urges that the public interest in learning the truth of the Kennedy 

Assassination outweighs any burden on the CIA to conduct a manual search. (Dkt. No. 53 at 4-5.) 

Even if that were the case, the relevant legal standards regarding the adequacy of a FOIA search 

Case 3:13-cv-05439-JSC Document 57 Filed 11/03/15 Page 8 of 9
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

do not take into account the importance of the subject matter of a FOIA request. At bottom, “a 

search need not be perfect, only adequate[.]” DiBacco v. Army, 795 F.3d 178, 194 (D.C. Cir. 

2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, while Bothwell may have preferred that the 

CIA engage in a manual paper files search, the CIA’s decision to not comb through all paper files 

given the lack of responsive hits from its database search using variants of Roselli’s name as a 

keyword is adequate to discharge its duties under the FOIA.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, and in the Court’s earlier orders, the Court GRANTS the 

CIA’s renewed motion for summary judgment. The Court will enter judgment in the CIA’s favor. 

The Clerk of Court shall close the case.

This Order terminates Docket No. 52.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05439-JSC Document 57 Filed 11/03/15 Page 9 of 9