UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA RO B ERT B REH M, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 07-1739 (RMU)

: v. : Document Nos.: 20, 21

: : DEPARTMENT OF DEF ENSE et al ., : : De fe nd ants . :

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION On Se pte mbe r 2 3, 20 08 , th e c ourt dir e c te d th e Ce ntr a l Inte lli g e nc e Ag e nc y (“ CI A” ) t o supplement the re cord in this action filed unde r the F ree dom of Information Ac t (“F OIA”) , 5 U. S.C. § 5 52 , w ithe vid e nc e of its se arc h f

or re c or ds re sp on siv e to t

he pla int if

f’ s F OIA r e qu e st for r ecor ds pertainingto himself. SeeOrde r of Septembe r 23, 2008 [Dkt. No. 18] and
acc ompanying Me morandum Opinion [Dkt. No. 19] . In what re mains of this case, the CI A has
re ne we d it s mo tio n f

or summa ry jud g me nt [D kt. No . 2 1], whic h a lso inc lud e s it s o pp os iti on to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgme nt filed on Octobe r 8, 2008 [Dkt. No. 20] . Upon consideration of the parties’ supplemental filing s and the e ntire re cord, the court g rants the CIA’s mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt a

nd de nie s th e pla int if

f’ s mo tio n f

or summa ry jud g me nt b e c a

us e it i s “ no t a c c omp anie d b y [the re qu isi te ] state me nt o f m a te ri a l f a c ts a s to wh ic h th e mov ingpa rt y
c on te nd s th e re is n o g e nu ine iss ue .” L CvR 7( h) ; Baptiste v. Bureau of Prisons , 554 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2 n.1 (D.D.C. 2008). I n support of its claim of an a dequate sear ch, the CIA proff ers the D ecla

ration of De lores M. Nelson (“ Nelson De cl.”) , who is Chief of the CIA’s Public Information Prog rams Division, I nformation Mana g ement Servic es and O ffice of the Chief I nformation Of

fice r. Ne lson Decl. ¶2

1. As manag er of

the CI A’s F OI A and Privac y Act programs, Ne lson is responsible for, among other duties, “dir ectingsear ches of CI A re cords sy stems pursuant to public reque sts for re cords . . . and coor dinating the revie w of a ny rec ords re trieved in such se arc hes.” Id . ¶ 2. He r s tate me nts
are “ ba se d u

po n [he r] p e rs on a l kn ow le dg e and inf or matio n ma de ava ila

ble to [h e r] i n th e c ours e of per forming[her] official duties,” id
. ¶ 3 , an d th er ef o re s at i s f[ y ] th e p er s o n al kn o wl ed ge require ment in Rule 56(e),” Barnard v. De p’t of Homeland Se c. , 531 F. Supp. 2d 131, 138 (D.D.C. 2008) ( citations and interna l quotation marks omitted). Using the plaintiff’s name, var iants thereof and other persona l identifiers, CI A staff
sear ched two f

iling sy stems determined likely to contain re sponsive rec ords, namely , the Direc torate of

Support and the National Clandestine Service . Nelson De cl. ¶ 10. B ased on Nelson’s de scription of those and othe r CI A databa ses, ¶¶ 5, 10- 12, the re trieval methods employ ed, id . ¶

¶ 1 1- 12 , a nd he r c on c lus ion

that “ it i s unli ke ly

that ot he r C I A d ir e c tor a te s w ou ld possess rec ords re sponsive to Plainti ff’ s reque st,” id
. ¶ 1 0 , th e c o urti s s a t i s f

i e d th a tth e C IA conducte d an ade quate se arc h for r esponsive re cords, s ee Long v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justice, 45 0 F. Supp.2d 42, 54 (D.D.C. 2006) (a g ency decla rations ar e ac corde d “a pr esumption of g ood faith”) (quoting SafeCard Servs., Inc . v. SEC , 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 ( D.C. Cir.1991)). For the fore g oing r easons, the c ourt g rants the CIA’s re newe d motion for summary jud g me nt a

nd de nie s th e pla int if

f’ s mo tio n f

or summa ry jud g me nt. A f

ina l or de r c on sis te nt w ith this Memorandum Opinion and the c ourt’s prior r uling r esolving all other issues is separ ately and contempora

neously issued this 5th day

of January

2009. RI CARDO M. URBI

NA Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ct J u d ge