1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KATHRYN SACK,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Defendant. 

 Civil Action No. 12-cv-1754 (RLW)

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Plaintiff Kathryn Sack, a University of Virginia graduate student, brings this Freedom of 

Information Act (“FOIA”) challenge against the Department of Defense (“DoD”), vis-à-vis its 

component agencies, the Defense Intelligence Agency (“DIA”) and the National Security 

Agency (“NSA”). Through her remaining claims, Sack argues that DIA failed to adequately 

search for records responsive to her FOIA requests and that it improperly withheld documents 

under FOIA’s statutory exemptions. Additionally, Sack complains that NSA failed to categorize 

her as an “educational institution” requester and wrongly failed to provide her with two free 

hours of search time. The matter is presently before the Court on the Department’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 22). Finding that DIA’s search methods were sound, and that 

DIA appropriately relied upon Exemption 7(E) to withhold the contested documents from 

release, the Court concludes that Sack’s claims involving DIA lack merit. With respect to NSA, 

however, the Court agrees that the record contains insufficient evidence to classify Sack as an 

“educational institution” requester. Additionally, the Court rejects Sack’s arguments surrounding

the two hours of free search time. Accordingly, having carefully considered the parties’ briefing, 

 1 The Court’s original opinion contained an error in the opening summary.
2

the entire record in this action, and the governing authorities and precedents, the Court concludes 

for the reasons that follow, that the Department’s Motion will be GRANTED. 

BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff Kathryn Sack (“Sack”) is a University of Virginia graduate student preparing her 

dissertation on the issue of polygraph bias.2

 (Compl. at ¶ 4). To gather more information in 

connection with her research, Sack filed eleven different FOIA requests with DIA and NSA, all 

of which generally sought information concerning the agencies’ polygraph programs. Although 

Sack’s Complaint asserts thirteen (13) separate counts, the scope of her claims has narrowed 

considerably during the pendency of this action. For purposes of this Opinion, the Court 

summarizes only the salient facts bearing on the claims that remain in dispute.3

1. Count II: DIA Request No. 0193-2011

On February 14, 2011, Sack filed three FOIA requests with DIA, only one of which 

remains at issue. Through that request, which Sack pursues through Count II of her Complaint, 

she sought “[a]ll records maintained by [DIA’s] security office representing aggregate data of 

polygraph examinations.” (Dkt. No. 22-1 (“Williams Decl.”) at ¶ 10, Ex. 3). DIA originally 

responded to Sack about one week later, on February 22, 2011, assigning her inquiry Request 

No. 0193-2011. (Id. ¶ 11, Ex. 4). Inexplicably, Sack’s request then sat dormant for quite some

 2 In the Complaint, the plaintiff is identified as “Kathryn Sack.” Most of the documents

found elsewhere in the record, though, refer to a “Katelyn Sack.” This incongruity is never 

explained by the parties, but the Court presumes that both names refer to the plaintiff here. 

3 For simplicity’s sake, the Court summarizes Sack’s claims in the sequence they appear in 

the Complaint, recognizing that, in some cases, the facts do not proceed chronologically. 
3

time until April 2012, when DIA eventually tasked the National Center for Credibility 

Assessment (“NCCA”) to search for responsive records. (Id. ¶ 12).4

 

While Sack’s request expressly sought records only from DIA’s Office of Security, DIA 

determined that responsive information was most likely to be located within NCCA, rather than 

the Office of Security. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 8). In turn, NCCA searched its electronic records systems for 

information responsive to the request, using its “ProCite Database” and the NCCA shared 

computer electronic storage drive; NCCA also searched its paper filing system. (Id. ¶ 12). For 

its electronic search, NCCA used keywords it thought calibrated to locate any potentially 

responsive records, including “bias,” “gender,” “race,” “age,” and “sexual orientation.” (Id.). 

Moreover, though DIA did not reasonably expect any results, DIA also asked the Office of 

Security to review its records, but the Office of Security confirmed that it does not maintain any 

aggregate data responsive to Sack’s request. (Id.). Ultimately, neither NCCA nor the Office of 

Security located any records responsive to this particular request. 

2. Counts V and VI: NSA Request Nos. 64010 and 64011

Sack also submitted three FOIA requests to NSA on or around February 14, 2011. Two 

of these requests—pled through Counts V and VI of her Complaint—remain in dispute. Therein, 

Sack sought records representing aggregate data of polygraph examinations and records 

pertaining to equal employment opportunity rules and polygraphs, respectively. (See Compl. at 

¶¶ 32-43). Sack also sought classification as an “academic” or “educational institution”

 4 DIA explains—and Sack does not dispute—that NCCA “serves as the government’s 

premiere educational center for polygraph and other credibility assessment technologies and 

techniques. Its central mission is to assist federal agencies in the protection of U.S. citizens, 

interests, infrastructure and security by providing the best education and tools for credibility 

assessment and to manage the Quality Assurance Program that develops, implements, and 

provides oversight of psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD) standards for the federal 

polygraph programs.” (Williams Decl. at ¶ 6). 
4

requester, which would have exempted her from the search-related costs associated with her 

request. (See Dkt. No. 22-3 (“Janosek Decl.”) at Ex. 1). NSA acknowledged receipt of Sack’s 

requests on March 10, 2011, assigning them case numbers 64010 and 64011. (Id., Ex. 2). 

Through this same response, NSA stated that Sack could not be classified as an “academic” 

requester, explaining that she did not meet the criteria for “educational institution” as defined in 

the Code of Federal Regulations; more specifically, NSA did not believe Sack’s request was 

made on behalf of the University of Virginia. (Id. ¶ 9, Ex. 2).5 Instead, NSA classified Sack as 

an “all other” requester, which meant that under DoD regulations, Sack was obligated to pay for 

search time in excess of two hours. (Id. at Ex. 2). Based on its initial assessment, NSA 

estimated that the applicable search costs (not including the two free hours of search time) would 

amount to approximately $880.00. (Id. ¶ 14, Ex. 2). NSA explained that Sack would be required 

to remit one-half of the total cost estimate ($440.00) before NSA would commence its search 

efforts. 

Rather than doing so, Sack appealed this determination in May 2012. (Id. ¶ 16, Ex. 3). 

As part of that appeal, Sack attached a letter from the University of Virginia’s Director of 

Graduate Studies, Professor Jeffrey Jenkins, stating that Sack’s objectives were “consistent with 

[the University’s] scholarly research goals” and confirming that Sack was “acting as a 

representative of the University of Virginia’s Department of Politics.” (Id., Ex. 3). The NSA 

FOIA Appeal Authority denied Sack’s appeal by letter dated January 17, 2013. (Id. ¶ 17, Ex. 4). 

NSA found Mr. Jenkins’ letter insufficient because it confirmed that Sack was “a Ph.D. student 

and President’s Fellow rather than a member of the faculty,” and because it did not come from 

 5 Sack also sought a “public interest” fee waiver under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii), which 

NSA denied in this same response. While part of her original claims in this case, Sack no longer 

challenges NSA’s determination on the “public interest” waiver. (See Pl’s Opp’n at 2). 
5

the Department’s Chair. (Id.). NSA also found significant that Sack’s counsel was representing 

only Sack individually, and not the University of Virginia or its Department of Politics. (Id.). 

Thus, Sack remained classified as an “all other” requester, with NSA requiring that Sack remit a 

portion of the estimated search costs before it would process her requests. 

3. Count IX: DIA Request No. 0069-2010

On October 23, 2009, Sack filed a FOIA request with DIA seeking Department of 

Defense Polygraph Institute (“DoDPI”) and Defense Academy of Credibility Assessment 

(“DACA”) records that would reflect polygraph examination bias research and studies. 

(Williams Decl. at ¶ 9, Ex. 8).6

 Although DIA acknowledged receipt on December 18, 2009, as 

with Sack’s other requests, it seems DIA did not take any further action for some time. (Id. ¶ 

17). Eventually, in or around April 2012, DIA conducted a search for records within NCCA, 

both within its paper filing system and its electronic records. (Id. ¶ 18). For purposes of the 

electronic review, NCCA again searched its ProCite Database and the NCCA shared computer 

electronic storage drive, using the keywords “bias,” “gender,” “race,” “age,” and “sexual 

orientation.” (Id.). Through its search efforts, DIA located three documents (totaling 42 pages) 

that were responsive to Sack’s request; all three documents were released in full, and are 

summarized in DIA’s Vaughn index at entries V-8, V-9, and V-10. (Id.; see also Dkt. No. 22-2 

(“DIA Vaughn Index”)). 

4. Counts XI and XII: DIA Request Nos. 0041-2012 and 0059-2012

Sack separately filed two FOIA requests with the Federal Investigative Services Division 

(“FIS”) of the Office of Personnel Management. The first of these requests, submitted on July 5, 

2011, sought records about polygraphers and polygraph examinations. (See Compl. at ¶ 67-68). 

 6 DoDPI and DACA are predecessors to the NCCA. (Williams Decl. at ¶ 6). 
6

The second request was filed on October 14, 2011, and sought “records pertaining to periodic 

reviews of agencies’ polygraph programs.” (Id. ¶ 74). With respect to the first request, FIS 

referred two records to DIA for direct response: a Quality Assurance Program Inspection Report,

and a Polygraph Memorandum of Agreement. (Williams Decl. at ¶ 22). Invoking FOIA 

Exemptions 3, 6, and 7(E), DIA withheld the Quality Assurance Program Inspection Report in 

full, and though it produced the Polygraph Memorandum of Agreement, DIA redacted portions 

of the document pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3 and 6. (Id. ¶ 23, Ex. 11; Vaughn Index). Sack 

was notified of this determination by letter dated March 5, 2013. (Williams Decl. at Ex. 11). As 

for the second request, FIS referred another seven records to DIA for direct response, all of 

which consisted of additional Quality Assurance Program Inspection Reports. (Williams Decl. at 

¶ 24; Vaughn Index). DIA withheld all seven documents from production, pursuant to FOIA 

Exemptions 3, 6, and 7(E). (Id.). 

5. Count XIII: DIA Request No. 0135-2011

Sack submitted a separate FOIA request to DIA on December 23, 2010, seeking all 

correspondence dating back to 2002 between DIA employees and Sheila Reed, who the parties 

describe as “a well-known polygraph researcher.” (Williams Decl. at ¶ 25, Ex. 12). After 

confirming receipt of this request by letter dated January 5, 2011, it appears DIA did not pursue 

Sack’s request any further for some time. (Id. ¶ 26). Eventually, NCCA conducted a search for 

potentially responsive materials, within both its paper files and its electronic records. (Id.). As 

search terms, DIA utilized “Sheila Reed” and “Reed, Sheila,” searching its ProCite Database and 

the NCCA share computer electronic storage drive. (Id.). No responsive records were located as 

a result of NCCA’s search, and DIA advised Sack of these results by letter on January 23, 2013. 

(Id. ¶¶ 27-28, Ex. 13). 
7

B. Procedural History

Sack filed her thirteen-count complaint initiating this FOIA action against DoD on 

October 30, 2012.7

 Since then, Sack has withdrawn or abandoned several claims. Through the 

Joint Status Report, Sack voluntarily dismissed Count III on January 18, 2013. (See Dkt. No. 12 

at ¶ 1(3)). The parties then proceeded with a stipulated summary judgment briefing schedule. 

The Department filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on March 22, 2013, (Dkt. No. 22

(“Def.’s MSJ”)), and through her opposition brief, filed on April 22, 2013, Sack expressly 

withdrew her claims under Counts I, IV, and VIII, (see Dkt. No. 23 (“Pl.’s Opp’n”) at 2-3). 

Finally, the Department advised the Court through its reply brief that Sack has withdrawn her 

claims under Count X. (See Dkt. No. 28-2). At this juncture, then, only Counts II, V, VI, VII, 

IX, XI, XII, and XIII remain in dispute. 

In support of its motion, DoD submitted several declarations describing DIA’s and 

NSA’s response efforts to Sack’s FOIA requests. As to DIA, the Court received the declaration 

of Alesia Williams, Chief of the FOIA Services Section within the FOIA and Declassification 

Services Branch for the DIA. (See Williams Decl.). In addition, Ms. Williams submitted a 

supplemental declaration along with the Department’s reply. (See Dkt. No. 28-1 (“Supp. 

Williams Decl.”)). The Department also filed a detailed Vaughn index, describing DIA’s

withholdings and redactions under FOIA’s statutory exemptions. (See Vaughn Index). With 

 7 Originally, Sack’s claims were part of a larger lawsuit. Along with DoD, that lawsuit 

involved FOIA claims against the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Justice, the 

Office of Personnel Management, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. On the 

defendants’ motion, the Court severed Sack’s claims and ordered Sack to refile those counts 

relating to DoD through a separate action. Two related FOIA actions remain pending before the 

undersigned—Sack v. Central Intelligence Agency (12-cv-537) and Sack v. U.S. Department of 

Justice (12-cv-1755)—but the claims in those matters will be resolved separately and are not 

otherwise addressed in this Memorandum Opinion. 
8

respect to NSA, the Court received the declaration of Diane Janosek, Deputy Associate Director 

for Policy and Records for the NSA.” (See Janosek Decl.).8

 

DoD’s Motion for Summary Judgment is now fully briefed and ripe for decision. 

ANALYSIS

Through her remaining claims, Sack challenges DIA’s and NSA’s compliance with their 

FOIA obligations in several respects. First, through Counts II, IX, and XIII, Sack asserts that 

DIA failed to perform an adequate search in response to her requests. Second, Sack insists that 

DIA improperly invoked FOIA Exemption 7(E) to fully withhold records responsive the FOIA 

requests described in Counts XI and XII. Third, Sack complains that NSA wrongly denied her 

request to be classified as an “educational institution” requester, treating her as an “all other”

requester instead. And fourth, Sack argues that NSA improperly failed to provide her with two 

free hours of search time, as “all other” requesters are entitled to receive. After summarizing the 

overall legal principles governing its analysis, the Court addresses each issue in turn. 

A. Applicable Legal Standards

“FOIA was intended to ‘pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency 

action to the light of public scrutiny.’” ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 655 F.3d 1, 5 (D.C. Cir. 

2011) (quoting U.S. Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 325, 361 (1976)). In view of this 

objective, FOIA requires federal agencies to release all records responsive to a proper request, 

unless the records fall within any of the statute’s nine enumerated exemptions. Loving v. U.S. 

 8 DoD also submitted an affidavit from David Hardy, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 

Section Chief of the Record/Information Dissemination Section, Records Management Division. 

(See Dkt. No. 22-4 (“Hardy Decl.”). Mr. Hardy attested to DoD’s justification for redacting the 

name and telephone number of an FBI employee under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C). (See 

generally id.). Insofar as Sack does not challenge any redactions under Exemptions 6 or 7(C), 

however, the Court had no occasion to rely on Mr. Hardy’s declaration in resolving this motion. 
9

Dep’t of Def., 550 F.3d 32, 37 (D.C. Cir. 2008); see 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (listing exemptions). 

“FOIA cases typically and appropriately are decided on motions for summary judgment.”

Hainey v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 925 F. Supp. 2d 34, 40 (D.D.C. 2013). As in all cases, 

“[s]ummary judgment is in order where, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the 

non-moving party, the court finds that there remains no ‘genuine issue as to any material fact.’” 

Petroleum Info. Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 976 F.2d 1429, 1433 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (quoting

FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)). 

When a requester challenges the adequacy of an agency’s search, the agency is entitled to 

summary judgment on such a claim if it can “demonstrate beyond material doubt that its search 

was ‘reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.’” Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast 

Guard, 180 F.3d 321, 325 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (quoting Truitt v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 897 F.2d 540, 

542 (D.C. Cir. 1990)); see also Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885, 890 (D.C. 

Cir. 1995). In many cases, “[s]ummary judgment may be based on affidavit, if the declaration 

sets forth sufficiently detailed information for a court to determine if the search was adequate.” 

Students Against Genocide v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 257 F.3d 828, 838 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (internal 

citation and quotation marks omitted). “If, however, the record leaves substantial doubt as to the 

sufficiency of the search, summary judgment for the agency is not proper.” Truitt, 897 F.2d at 

542. The governing standard “is not whether there might exist any other documents possibly 

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

Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (emphasis in original), 

and “adequacy is measured by the reasonableness of the effort in light of the specific request,” 

Larson v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857, 869 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Put another 

way, to secure summary judgment, “the agency must show that it made a good faith effort to 
10

conduct a search for the requested records, using methods which can be reasonably expected to 

produce the information requested.” Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 

1990). 

When an agency withholds records in response to a FOIA request, the agency “bears the 

burden of proving the applicability of claimed exemptions.” ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 628 

F.3d 612, 619 (D.C. Cir. 2011); Public Citizen, Inc. v. Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 598 F.3d 865, 

869 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Inasmuch as “FOIA mandates a strong presumption in favor of disclosure 

. . . the statutory exemptions, which are exclusive, are to be narrowly construed.” Nat’l Ass’n of 

Home Builders v. Norton, 309 F.3d 26, 32 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (internal citations and quotation 

marks omitted). Summary judgment is proper for the agency when its “affidavits describe the 

justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail, demonstrate that the information 

withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption, and are not controverted by either contrary 

evidence in the record nor by evidence of agency bad faith.” Larson, 565 F.3d at 862 (quoting 

Miller v. Casey, 730 F.2d 773, 776 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). “Ultimately, an agency’s justification for 

invoking a FOIA exemption is sufficient if it appears ‘logical’ or ‘plausible.’” Id. (quoting Wolf 

v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370, 374-75 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). As a result, “[t]o successfully challenge an 

agency’s showing that it complied with the FOIA, the plaintiff must come forward with ‘specific 

facts’ demonstrating that there is a genuine issue with respect to whether the agency has 

improperly withheld extant agency records.” Span v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 696 F. Supp. 2d 113, 

119 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 142 (1989)). 
11

B. The Adequacy Of DIA’s Searches

1. Count II

Count II concerns Sack’s request for information from DIA’s Office of Security 

“representing aggregate data of polygraph examinations.” (See Compl. at ¶ 14). As set forth 

above, DIA’s ensuing search for records yielded no results. Displeased with this result, Sack 

now contests the adequacy of DIA’s search efforts on several fronts. First, Sack complains that 

DIA too narrowly interpreted her request as limited to “bias-related” records, when the request 

sought aggregate polygraph data generally and had “nothing to do with bias.” (Pl.’s Opp’n at 7). 

Second, Sack assails DIA for listing only some of the terms used during its search, rather than all 

of the terms, arguing that this showing cannot satisfy DIA’s obligation to demonstrate an 

adequate search. Third, Sack contends that DIA wrongly focused its search on polygraph 

examiners, rather than polygraph examinations, as the request sought. 

The Court can quickly dispense with the latter two arguments. Both contentions spring 

from the content of Ms. Williams’ original declaration in this case. Therein, Ms. Williams

attested that NCCA conducted its electronic search using “keywords, such as ‘bias,’ ‘gender,’ 

‘race,’ ‘age,’ and ‘sexual orientation.’” (Williams Decl. at ¶ 12) (emphasis added). She also 

averred that “the Office of Security reported that the office does not maintain any aggregate data 

concerning polygraph examiners.” (Id.) (emphasis added). Sack seizes upon these statements in 

insisting that DIA has not satisfied its FOIA obligations—both because the agency failed to 

delineate the full contours of its review (providing an illustrative, rather than exhaustive, list of 

search terms), and because it searched for the wrong records (i.e., data regarding polygraph 

examiners, rather than polygraph examinations). Whatever weight these arguments might carry 

in another case, Ms. Williams’ supplemental declaration neutralizes their impact here. Ms. 

Williams confirmed that despite her inclusion of the phrase “such as” in her original declaration, 
12

the search terms she listed consisted of the entire universe of terms used during DIA’s electronic 

review of NCCA records. (Supp. Williams Decl. at ¶ 5). Additionally, Ms. Williams explained 

that her reference to “polygraph examiners” was simply a typographical error; she confirmed that 

DIA actually interpreted Sack’s request as seeking “aggregate data of polygraph examinations,” 

and she confirmed with the Office of Security and NCCA that the offices interpreted Sack’s 

request the same and searched accordingly. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 6-7). In view of these clarifications, 

Sack’s arguments on these points are unavailing.

Sack’s remaining argument—that DIA inappropriately narrowed her request as seeking 

only bias-related information—merits some further discussion. But ultimately, this theory too 

fails to persuade. According to Sack, her request was broadly-phrased, calling for all aggregate 

data regarding polygraph examinations. And because DIA limited its electronic search of NCCA 

records to bias-related keywords, Sack insists that this search cannot be deemed adequate. For 

its part, DIA rejoins that after consulting with NCCA leadership, it was determined that a search 

using the term “aggregate data” would not yield any results. Instead, DIA and NCCA leadership 

determined that “searching for information related to bias or unfairness was most likely to locate 

records responsive to plaintiff’s request.” (Supp. Williams Decl. at ¶ 5). In the Court’s view,

both sides overlook a critical issue in pressing these arguments—the specific scope of Sack’s 

FOIA request. Sack’s request was explicitly limited to records maintain by DIA’s “security 

office,” (Williams Decl., Ex. 2), which means that the parties’ debate surrounding DIA’s search 

of NCCA records—as compared with records maintained by the Office of Security, as Sack 

actually requested—largely misses the mark. 

As our Circuit has repeatedly recognized, “adequacy is measured by the reasonableness 

of the effort in light of the specific request.” Larson, 565 F.3d at 869 (quoting Meeropol v. 
13

Meese, 790 F.2d 942, 956 (D.C. Cir. 1986)). This means that an agency “is not obliged to look 

beyond the four corners of the request for leads to the location of responsive documents.” 

Kowalczyk v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 73 F.3d 386, 389 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Here, the four corners of 

Sack’s request clearly limited the scope of records she was seeking to records maintained by the

Office of Security, not the NCCA. And though Sack summarily complains that DIA fails to 

describe its search efforts in relation to the Office of Security altogether, the Court disagrees. 

Ms. Williams avers that DIA consulted with “senior leaders” in the Office of Security, 

and that those leaders confirmed the Office of Security does not maintain aggregate data; instead 

its records systems are limited to “the individual personal polygraph examination reports of the 

many DIA and DoD employees who have been required to submit to a polygraph examination.” 

(Supp. Williams Decl. ¶ 7). In addition, “[t]he Office of Security leadership confirmed that it has 

not endeavored to develop aggregate data from these individual files or reports.” (Id.). The 

Court finds that this explanation—derived from DIA’s consultation with senior officials familiar 

with the Office of Security’s records—demonstrates that DIA appropriately approached Sack’s 

request and that a more detailed search on the Office of Security’s part would have been “futile 

and . . . unnecessary.” American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland 

Sec., 516 F. Supp. 2d 83, 88 (D.D.C. 2007); see also Amnesty Int’l U.S.A. v. CIA, No. 07 Civ. 

5435, 2008 WL 2519908, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2008) (“FOIA does not demand a search 

that would be futile.”).9

Moreover, setting aside the question of whether the scope of Sack’s request obligated 

DIA to search NCCA’s records systems, the Court agrees that it was at least reasonable for DIA 

 9 Relatedly, DIA’s Office of Security had no obligation to compile its individual polygraph 

reports into an aggregate form to respond to Sack’s request. FOIA “does not impose any duty on 

the agency to create records.” ACLU, 655 F.3d at 5 n.3 (quoting Forsham v. Harris, 445 U.S. 

169, 186 (1980)) (internal alterations omitted). 
14

to do so, given its belief that responsive information was most likely to be found within NCCA

records, if anywhere. See, e.g., Lechliter v. Rumsfeld, 182 F. App’x 113, 115-16 (3d Cir. 2006) 

(deeming reasonable the agency’s decision to search two offices “determined to be the only ones 

likely to possess responsive documents”); Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. 

Dep’t of Justice, 822 F. Supp. 2d 12, 19 (D.D.C. 2011) (finding it reasonable to direct search 

efforts “at the people and offices most likely to have responsive information”). And in carrying 

out that aspect of its search, it was equally reasonable for DIA to rely upon the bias- and EEOrelated search terms it used. As noted, DIA determined, in consultation with NCCA officials, 

that a search for “aggregate data” would have been fruitless. In turn, the agency interpreted the 

scope of Sack’s request in a manner consistent with the scope of Sack’s accompanying FOIA 

requests to DIA, all of which sought bias- and EEO-related information related to polygraphs. 

(See Williams Decl., Exs. 1, 5). Under the totality of the circumstances, this was an appropriate 

approach. See Rein v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 553 F.3d 353, 363 (4th Cir. 2009) 

(concluding that agency’s “decision to use the searches conducted in response to [prior, similar] 

requests as the starting point for responding to [current] requests was not inherently unreasonable 

and appears to be a practical and common-sense approach,” since “[t]he requests sought similar 

information related to the same subject matter”). 

In sum, the Court concludes that DIA met its FOIA obligations to conduct a reasonable 

and adequate search for potentially responsive records as to Count II of the Complaint.

2. Count IX

Through Count IX, Sack challenges DIA’s response to her request for studies pertaining 

to polygraph bias. While DIA produced three responsive records, detailed at entries V-8, V-9, 
15

and V10 of DIA’s Vaughn index, Sack nevertheless contests the adequacy of DIA’s search 

efforts. In so doing, Sack presses two familiar arguments. Neither is persuasive. 

First, Sack assails Ms. Williams’ use of the phrase “such as” in introducing the search 

terms used by NCCA. The Court rejects this argument for the reasons already stated; as with 

Count II, Ms. Williams subsequently confirmed that the search terms listed were the only terms 

used by DIA in carrying out this search. (Supp. Williams Decl. at ¶ 8). Second, Sack again 

complains about DIA’s failure to provide specific information concerning the nature of the 

search performed within the Office of Security. But again, Sack is wrong. As before, Ms. 

Williams attests that through discussions with Office of Security leadership, DIA determined that 

it was “highly unlikely that [responsive] records would be located” within the office, insofar as 

the Office of Security maintains only individual employee polygraph reports, and not research or 

studies about polygraph biases. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8). This explanation sufficiently establishes that a 

more detailed search was unnecessary and would have been futile. See American-Arab AntiDiscrimination Comm., 516 F. Supp. 2d at 88; Amnesty Int’l, 2008 WL 2519908, at *11. 

Moreover, despite the unlikelihood that responsive records would be found in the Office of 

Security, the record establishes that the Office of Security searched its electronic files anyway,

using the same keywords as NCCA—keywords with which Sack does not take issue for purposes 

of this particular request. (Williams Decl. at ¶ 18; Supp. Williams Decl. at ¶¶ 8-9). Despite 

these efforts, DIA did not uncover any responsive records. Simply put, DIA’s search efforts in 

response to this request comported with its obligations under FOIA, and none of Sack’s 

arguments establishes otherwise.
16

3. Count XIII

Sack next takes issue with DIA’s response to her request for correspondence between DIA 

employees and Sheila Reed, as pled through Count XIII. In so arguing, Sack mounts two 

separate challenges to the adequacy of DIA’s search. First, Sack argues that DIA wrongly 

confined its search efforts to NCCA, when it should have reviewed records held by other 

components of DIA, particularly the Office of Security. Second, Sack argues that even DIA’s 

search within NCCA fell short, insofar as DIA inappropriately neglected to review NCCA’s 

email systems for potentially responsive documents. Neither theory is availing. 

To begin with, the record establishes that DIA’s focus on NCCA’s records systems, as 

opposed to documents with the Office of Security, was reasonable and appropriate. As set forth 

in Ms. Williams’ declaration, DIA consulted directly with leadership from the Office of Security 

and ultimately determined that a search of Office of Security records was unlikely to uncover

any responsive records. (Supp. Williams Decl. at ¶ 16). According to Ms. Williams, “[t]he 

Office of Security does not conduct polygraph research,” but is instead focused on “conduct[ing] 

polygraph examinations based on the guidance provided by the NCCA.” (Id.). She further avers 

that none of the leadership staff members are personally acquainted with Ms. Reed, such that 

they would be likely to possess responsive email messages; indeed, the Office of Security 

leadership confirmed that they have not had any communication with Ms. Reed. (Id.). Based on 

this assessment, the Court agrees that an additional search of the Office of Security’s records was 

unnecessary. See American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 516 F. Supp. 2d at 88; Amnesty 

Int’l, 2008 WL 25119908, at *11. To the contrary, based on NCCA’s mission of assisting 

federal agencies with education and tools for credibility assessment, it was appropriate for DIA 

to conclude that any responsive records were likely to be found within NCCA, and to focus its 

search efforts accordingly. See Lechliter, 182 F. App’x at 115-16; Citizens for Responsibility & 
17

Ethics in Wash., 822 F. Supp. 2d at 19. At bottom, Sack is effectively arguing that responsive 

documents might exist elsewhere within DIA, but she offers nothing beyond her own supposition 

in support of this theory. This approach simply comes up short. See, e.g., Hodge v. FBI, 703 

F.3d 575, 580 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“As we have said before, mere speculation that as yet uncovered 

documents may exist does not undermine the finding that the agency conducted a reasonable 

search.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

As for Sack’s second argument, it is now effectively moot. Ms. Williams confirms that 

DIA has since undertaken a supplemental search of NCCA’s email systems and archives for 

potentially responsive records, using Ms. Reed’s first and last name as search terms in the “to” 

and “from” fields of messages. (Supp. Williams Decl. at ¶ 15). These additional search efforts 

did not yield any responsive records. Accordingly, the Court concludes that DIA discharged its 

FOIA obligations with respect to Sack’s claim under Count XIII. 

C. DIA’s Withholdings: FOIA Exemption 7(E)

Along with her claims surrounding DIA’s search efforts, Sack also insists that DIA 

improperly withheld responsive documents under FOIA’s statutory exemptions. In particular, 

Sack contends that DIA wrongly invoked Exemption 7(E) to withhold the various Quality 

Assurance Program Inspection Reports (“QAP Reports”) that were uncovered during DIA’s 

search. (See Vaughn Index, V-1, V-2, V-3, V-4, V-5, V-6, V-7, V-11).10 

“Exemption 7(E) shields information if ‘disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk 

circumvention of the law.’” Mayer Brown LLP v. IRS, 562 F.3d 1190, 1192 (D.C. Cir. 2009) 

(quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E)). In this Circuit, “Exemption 7(E) sets a relatively low bar for 

 10 Although DIA redacted portions of these same documents (and others) pursuant to FOIA 

Exemptions 3, 6, and 7(C), Sack does not challenge the propriety of these withholdings. (See

Pl.’s Opp’n at 11). Instead, Sack strictly takes issue with DIA’s reliance on Exemption 7(E) to 

withhold the entirety of the above-referenced documents in full. 
18

the agency to justify withholding: ‘Rather than requiring a highly specific burden of showing 

how the law will be circumvented, exemption 7(E) only requires that the [agency] demonstrate 

logically how the release of the requested information might create a risk of circumvention of the 

law.’” Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37, 42 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Mayer Brown LLP, 562 F.3d 

at 1194) (alteration in original). With respect to the QAP Reports at issue, DIA maintains that 

“disclosure of this particular information could diminish the effectiveness of polygraph 

examination as an investigative tool.” (Williams Decl. at ¶ 25). As DIA explains things, “the 

role of the NCCA in examining the polygraph programs of other agencies”—and, in turn, in 

creating these QAP Reports—“was to identify the potential weaknesses or vulnerabilities that 

may allow bad actors to fool that agency and conduct illegal activities without detection.” (Id. ¶ 

26). According to DIA, then, “[i]f this information [were] disclosed to the general public, . . . a 

determined bad actor could identify agencies with greater polygraph program vulnerabilities” 

that “could then be exploited.” (Id.). The Court agrees that this explanation satisfies Exemption 

7(E)’s standards to justify DIA’s withholdings. 

None of Sack’s arguments to the contrary compel a different outcome. Sack first seeks to 

distinguish between polygraph examinations conducted as part of a criminal investigation, on the 

one hand, and employment-related polygraph programs, on the other. In her view, while the 

release of information concerning polygraph examinations of criminal suspects could jeopardize 

public safety and risk the subversion of law—thus justifying the withholding of “all polygraph 

information,” (see Pl.’s Opp’n at 14) —details surrounding the employment-screening polygraph 

processes used by federal agencies pose no such risk. While the Court recognizes that there are 

certainly some distinctions between the two scenarios, neither the case law nor common sense 

supports the hard line in the sand Sack seeks to draw. True, much of the precedent supporting the 
19

withholding of polygraph information under Exemption 7(E) arises in the criminal investigatory

context. See, e.g., Piper v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 294 F. Supp. 2d 16, 30 (D.D.C. 2003)

(collecting cases). But the D.C. Circuit’s precedents make clear that the application of 

Exemption 7(E) should not be so narrowly cabined. As DIA rightly observes, our Court of 

Appeals has upheld the invocation of Exemption 7(E) to withhold information that could 

reasonably be expected to allow insight into the CIA’s clearance and investigatory processes 

used during the background investigations of its officers. See Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108, 

1128-29 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (“It is self-evident that information revealing security clearance 

procedures could render those procedures vulnerable and weaken their effectiveness at 

uncovering background information on potential candidates.”). Cf. Tax Analysts v. IRS, 294 F.3d 

71, 79 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“An agency may seek to block the disclosure of internal agency 

materials relating to guidelines, techniques, sources, and procedures for law enforcement 

investigations and prosecutions, even when the materials have not been compiled in the course of 

a specific investigation.”). The Circuit’s reasoning in Morley applies with equal force here.

Disclosure of the QAP Reports could reasonably be expected to circumvent the efficacy 

of background investigations undertaken by federal agencies. Indeed, these concerns are 

particularly heightened in this case, given that the QAP Reports in contention pertain to the 

polygraph screening programs of federal law enforcement agencies—the United States Secret 

Service; the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives; and the Drug Enforcement Administration. (See Vaughn Index V-1, 

V-2, V-3, V-4, V-5, V-6, V-7, V-11). The Court agrees that placing this information in the 

public domain at least creates a risk that bad actors could leverage those details to subvert the 

background screening process, thereby gaining access to sensitive (if not classified) information 
20

that could be exploited to harm national security and homeland security interests. The Court thus 

rejects Sack’s contention that because the QAP Reports relate to employment-based polygraph 

programs, their disclosure does not implicate the sort of risks that would justify the invocation of 

Exemption 7(E). 

Second, Sack asserts that even though some of the information in the QAP reports may 

be properly exempt from disclosure, DIA failed to satisfy its segregability obligations to release

information that, at least in Sack’s mind, poses no risk of circumvention of the law. More 

specifically, Sack does not dispute that the sections of the QAP Reports “describing uncorrected

vulnerabilities in agencies’ polygraph programs is properly exempt” under Exemption 7(E). 

(Pl.’s Opp’n at 11) (emphasis in original); (Id. at 14) (“Sack concedes that information which 

would highlight current vulnerabilities in intelligence and law enforcement agencies’ 

employment screening polygraph programs would be properly exempt.”) (emphasis in original). 

Instead, Sack takes issue with DIA’s withholding of those aspects of the QAP Reports pertaining 

to vulnerabilities that “have been fixed or did not exist in the first place.” (Id.). In the Court’s 

view, this is a distinction without a meaningful difference. Forcing DIA to release details 

concerning the efficacy of polygraph programs used by federal law enforcement agencies—

whether related to vulnerabilities, strengths, or otherwise—implicates the threats and dangers

outlined above, creating at least a risk that subversive individuals will be armed with advanced 

knowledge of the procedures used by the United States to screen applicants for sensitive 

employment positions and security clearances. In short, Sack’s efforts to cast various aspects of 

the withheld QAP Reports outside of Exemption 7(E)’s reach are simply unpersuasive. 

Finally, Sack assails DIA for assertedly misrepresenting that the QAP Reports were 

voluntarily created at the request of agencies, when the QAP Reports were mandated under 
21

Office of Personnel Management policy. Sack suggests that these circumstances undermine the 

propriety of DIA’s withholdings. For its part, DIA disclaims any intent to “leave the impression 

that a law enforcement agency pursues this type of inspection without any requirement to do so.” 

(Supp. Williams Decl. at ¶ 13). Either way, this argument is much ado about nothing. Whether 

the QAP Reports are created in connection with mandatory or voluntary inspections, the end 

result is the same: the content of these documents summarizes the polygraph programs of federal 

law enforcement agencies, and for the reasons stated, the release of that information “could 

reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.” Mayer Brown LLP, 562 F.3d at 1192. 

In sum, the Court agrees that DIA has met its burden to demonstrate that the QAP 

Reports uncovered during its search were properly withheld under Exemption 7(E).

D. Sack’s Request That NSA Classify Her As An “Educational Institution” Requester

Unlike her claims against DIA, Sack’s remaining claims against NSA do not stem from 

an allegedly inadequate search or the invocation of supposedly inapplicable exemptions. Indeed, 

with respect to the specific FOIA requests at issue, NSA did not even undertake a search for 

potentially responsive records, and it certainly did not withhold any such records under FOIA’s 

statutory exemptions. Rather, Sack alleges that NSA improperly refused to classify her as an 

“educational institution” requester for purposes of FOIA’s fee provisions. 

Under FOIA, fees assessed in connection with a request generally include “reasonable 

standard charges for document search, duplication, and review, when records are requested for 

commercial use.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(I). That said, “[t]he fees required by FOIA are 

reduced for certain categories of requesters.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 122 

F. Supp. 2d 13, 20 (D.D.C. 2000). As relevant here, “when records are not sought for 

commercial use and the request is made by an educational . . . institution,” the statute provides 
22

that “fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document duplication.” 5 U.S.C. § 

552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II). In other words, when records are sought by an “educational institution”—as 

that term is interpreted in the FOIA context—the requester is not assessed fees for time spent 

searching for and reviewing potentially responsive records; the requester is responsible solely for 

duplication costs. See Nat’l Sec. Archive v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 880 F.2d 1381, 1382-83 (D.C. 

Cir. 1989) (“In such cases, an agency may impose upon the requester only the cost of duplicating 

the records it releases.”). The Court has jurisdiction to review an agency’s fee-category 

determination. Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 241 F. Supp. 2d 5, 9 (D.D.C. 2003). 

And though the appropriate scope of judicial review appears somewhat unsettled, see Nat’l Sec. 

Archive, 880 F.2d at 1383 (declining to resolve the question), both parties here agree that the 

Court’s review should be de novo, and limited to the record before NSA at the time of its 

determination. With this framework in mind, the Court turns to the question at hand. 

Sack maintains that as a representative of the University of Virginia’s Department of 

Political Science—and, more specifically, as a University representative seeking information in 

furtherance of the Department’s scholarly research goals—she should have been classified under 

the “educational institution” fee category. For its part, NSA rejoins that the information put 

forward by Sack was insufficient to establish that she was acting on behalf of the University or 

the Department at the time she submitted her FOIA requests, rather than pursuing her own 

individual research goals. While both sides mount credible arguments in support of their 

positions, on balance, the Court agrees with NSA that Sack failed to present sufficient evidence 

to justify her classification as an “educational institution” requester. 

The Court notes at the outset that there is a dearth of authority concerning this particular 

question. As a starting point, DoD regulations define the term “educational institution” as:
23

[A] pre-school, a public or private elementary or secondary school, an institution 

of graduate high education, an institution of undergraduate higher education, an 

institution of professional education, and an institution of vocational education, 

which operates a program or programs of scholarly research.

32 C.F.R. § 286.28(e)(4). Further, the OMB fee guidelines—to which agency regulations must 

conform, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(i)—make clear that the “educational institution” category 

extends to representatives acting on behalf of the institution, as long as the request “serves a 

scholarly research goal of the institution.” OMB Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee 

Schedule and Guidelines, 52 Fed. Reg. 10,012, 10,014 (Mar. 27, 1987); see also 132 Cong. Rec. 

S14298 (Sept. 30, 1986) (remarks of Sen. Leahy) (“A request made by a professor or other 

member of the professional staff of an educational . . . institution should be presumed to have 

been made by the institution.”). The OMB fee guidelines elaborate on this concept with some 

concrete examples, explaining that:

[A] request from a professor of geology at a State university for records relating 

to soil erosion, written on letterhead of the Department of Geology, could be 

presumed to be from an educational institution. A request from the same person 

for drug information from the Food and Drug Administration in furtherance of a 

murder mystery he is writing would not be presumed to be an institutional 

request, regardless of whether it was written on institutional stationary. 

* * *

The institutional versus individual test would apply to student requests as well. A 

student who makes a request in furtherance of the completion of a course of 

instruction is carrying out an individual research goal and the request would not 

qualify . . . .

52 Fed. Reg. at 10,014. As explained in the Justice Department FOIA Guide, “[t]o qualify for 

inclusion in this fee subcategory, the request must serve a scholarly research goal of the 

institution, not an individual goal. Thus, a student seeking inclusion in this subcategory, who

‘makes a request in furtherance of the completion of a course of instruction is carrying out an 

individual research goal,’ and would not qualify as an educational institution requester.” U.S. 

Department of Justice, Guide to the Freedom of Information Act, p. 102 (2009) (emphasis 
24

added) (citing the OMB fee guidelines). As one commentator recently conceded (plaintively), 

the OMB fee guidelines confirm that individual research projects serve a “training” function for 

the student and do not meet the FOIA educational institutional exemption. Pall, The High Costs 

of Costs: Fees as Barriers to Access Within the United States and Canadian Freedom of 

Information Regimes, 7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 599, 622 (2009). The wisdom of this 

statutory and regulatory scheme is not before the Court, only its application to the record.

Under this framework, the Court finds that Sack did not sufficiently establish she was 

acting on behalf of the University’s Department of Politics through her requests, or that she was 

seeking the requested information in furtherance of the University’s scholarly goals. As an 

initial matter, Sack’s original proffer to the NSA—essentially consisting of her own, conclusory 

assertion that her requests fell under the “educational institution” category, (see Janosek Decl., 

Ex. 1)—was plainly inadequate. On appeal, Sack supplied NSA with a letter—written on 

University of Virginia letterhead and signed by the Director of Graduate Studies in the 

Department of Politics, Professor Jeffrey Jenkins—which stated that Sack’s research objectives 

were “consistent with U. Va.’s scholarly research goals,” that Sack’s requests were submitted 

“on behalf of [the] institution,” and that Sack was “acting as a representative of the University of 

Virginia’s Department of Politics.” (Id., Ex. 3). In NSA’s view, this proffer still fell short, and 

the agency concluded that Mr. Jenkins’ contention that Sack was representing the Department of 

Politics was “not supportable.” (Id., Ex. 4). While it is a close question, the Court agrees. 

Professor Jenkins’ letter was wholly conclusory – while he asserted that Sack’s request was “on 

behalf of the institution,” he did not specify that the request was being used to support a research 

project being carried out by him, any other professor, or any department of the university. 

Instead, his letter parroted the language from Sack’s original request, which was that she 
25

“intend[ed] to review, evaluate, synthesize, and present the requested data, analyses, policies, 

protocols, and practices in a publically available, usable form,” adding that “[t]his intention is 

consistent with U. Va.’s scholarly research goals.” (Id., Ex. 3). Sack’s original request 

identified her as a Ph.D. student preforming research, and NSA was entitled to conclude that her 

request furthered an “individual research goal” associated with completing a course of her 

graduate studies or her dissertation. Professor Jenkins’ letter could have made clear that Sack’s 

research was for something other than fulfilling her course requirements, but it conspicuously 

failed to do so. 

In sum, all of Sack’s submissions contained vague and conclusory wording that evaded 

the central question presented by the OMB fee guidelines: whether the request was for Sack’s 

coursework, or whether it was for a project sponsored by the educational institution. Sack, as the 

requester, had the burden of proof on this issue, and her proof was simply insufficient. To hold 

otherwise would allow a student’s FOIA request supporting her coursework to fall within the 

educational institution exemption, so long as the request does not mention her coursework and so 

long as an instructor asserts (without explanation) that the request is “on behalf of the institution” 

and that the student’s research is “consistent” with the goals of the institution. This would be an 

end-run around the OMB fee guidelines. Accordingly, the Court holds that NSA did not err by 

refusing to classify Sack as an “educational institution” requester for purposes of FOIA Requests 

64010 and 64011. 11 

 11 The Court pauses to emphasize the narrow scope of its holding. In the future, Sack or 

any other student requester can qualify for “educational institution” classification under FOIA by 

supplying the agency with confirmation—on institutional letterhead, and written by an 

appropriate official—that the research underlying the student’s request is not in furtherance of 

the student’s coursework and is made on behalf of the institution and in furtherance of research 

sponsored by the institution. 
26

Finally, the Court need not tarry long on Sack’s alternative challenge to NSA’s policies 

surrounding two free search hours. Plaintiff does not dispute that she refused to either pay fees 

or commit to making any payment on the requests at issue. NSA’s requirement that Plaintiff 

remit payment in the amount of $440.00, which is one-half of the total amount of the estimated 

costs, minus the free search time, (Id., Ex. 2), is in accordance with its regulations, 32 C.F.R. § 

286.28(e)(2)(i)(B), which unambiguously state that “a search for responsive records will not be 

initiated until the requester indicates a willingness to pay assessable costs appropriate for the 

category determined by the Component.” See Janosek Decl. ¶ 25. Nothing in the FOIA 

precludes an agency from first requiring that the payment and scope of a request be clear before 

any search is conducted. See Chaplin v. Stewart, 796 F. Supp. 2d 209, 211-12 (D.D.C. 2011) 

(finding that the agency was entitled to judgment as a matter of law where agency complied with 

DOJ regulations by informing plaintiff about the fee requirements and suggesting ways to reduce 

his costs and plaintiff neither paid nor committed to paying the assessed fees); Saldana v. Bureau 

of Prisons, 715 F. Supp. 2d 10, 16-17, 21 (D.D.C. 2010) (“because [plaintiff] neither reduced the 

scope of his January 2006 request nor paid, or agreed to pay, the associated search fee, [he] 

therefore has not exhausted his administrative remedies”); Research Air, Inc. v. Kempthorne, 589 

F. Supp. 2d 1, 10 & n.6 (D.D.C. 2008) (agency properly refused to process a FOIA request 

where the requester rejected the notion that he would be required to pay a fee and agency 

“demanded only that [plaintiff] either narrow his request in order to reduce their estimated costs 

or commit to future payment for the costs incurred by [the agency] in processing the search 

request”).
27

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that DoD’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment is GRANTED. The Court already has issued an appropriate Order.

Date: December 13, 2013

 

 ROBERT L. WILKINS

United States District Judge