Plaintiffs "do not objec t to the scope of the g overnme nt's se arc h for or disclosure of 1 medical r ecor ds in response" to the reque st for medica l rec ords, conc edingthat summary judgme nt for the g overnme nt is appropriate on that reque st. Pl .' s Mem. of P. & A . in Supp. of UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA
INTERNATIONAL COUNSEL BUREAU and PILLSB URY, WINTHROP , SHAW, PI T T MA N, L L P, P lai nt iffs, v. Ci vilAc ti on N o. 08 -1 06 3 ( JD B) UN ITED STA TES D EP AR TM EN T OF DE F EN SE, Defendan t.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION Pla int if fs Inte rn atio na l Co un se l B ur e a u a nd Pill sb ur y , Winthr op , Sh aw, Pittman, L L P, bringthis action ag ainst the United States Depa rtment of De fense pursuant to the F ree dom of Information Ac t, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., seekingrec ords per taining to f

our individuals detained at Guantana mo Ba y Nava l Ba se, Cuba. Plaintiffs pursue two F OIA re quests. The fir st seeks medical r ecor ds on behalf of Foua d Mahmoud Al Rabiah and F ayiz M ohammed Ahmed A l K an d ar i. T h e s e c o n d

s e e k s v id e o , p h o to g r a

p h ic an d o th e r r e c o r d e d d o c ume n ts d e p ic ti n gF aw zi Khaled A bdullah Fa

had Al Oda

h, Khalid Abdullah Misha' al Al Mutairi, Al Rabiah or A l Kanda ri. Now be fore the Court are the def endant' s motion for summary judgme nt and the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgme nt and for Rule 56( f) discove ry . At issue is whether the scope of the g overnme nt's se arc h for r ecor ds was ade quate a nd whether

the g overnme nt proper ly withheld the re cords it did find. 1Pl. ' s O pp ' n to De f. ' s Mo t. f or Summ. J., Pl. ' s Mo t. f

or Part ia l Summ. J., a

nd Pl. ' s Ru le 56 (f

) M ot. for Disc . (" Pl.'s Mem." ) at n.2. Ac cording ly , this Court considers only plaintiffs' reque st for video, photog raphic and other rec orded doc uments. Plainti ffs, howe ver, c ontinue to seek such materia ls to the ex tent they have be en re dacte d from the pr oduced me dical re cords. I d. at 2.

-2- BACK GR OUND In Marc h 2008, plaintiffs submitted a FOIA re quest to the Def ense D epar

tment seeking
rec ords of four

Kuwaiti citizens detained at Guantanamo: Fawzi Khaled A bdullah Fa

had Al Odah, Kha lid Abdullah Misha'a l Al-Mutairi, Foua d Mahmoud Al Rabiah and F ayiz M ohammed Ahmed Al Ka

ndari (" Kuwaiti Deta inees" ). See A m. Compl . ¶¶ 1- 2, 4. Plaintiffs requeste d
any re c or din g , in c lud ingany

ima g e , p ho togra

ph , p ic tur e , f

ilm , draw ing, pa inting, video, videota pe, tape rec ording , audiotape, CD, or DV D, de pic tin gor

re fl e c tin gthe ima g e , li ke ne ss, vo ic e , a ud ibl e a c ti o n , o r an y o th e r a s p e c t o r a c ti v it y o f an y [K uw a it i D e ta in e e ]. Compl., Ex . A at 1. F oll ow inga

se arc h o f i ts r e c or ds , th e De fe ns e De pa rtme nt l oc ate d f

if ty -n ine ph oto g ra

ph s, forty -five vide os and one a udiotape re sponsive to plaintiffs' reque st. See Def .' s Mem. of P. & A
. in Supp. of its M ot. for Summ. J . (" Def .' s Mem.") at 2; Def

.' s Mem., Ex . 1, Dec l. of Br ig. G ener al Ra fa e l O ' F e rr a ll r e : Ima g e ry (" O' F e rr a ll D e c l." ) ¶

7- 9. Th e De pa

rtme nt w ithhe ld t

he se re c or ds in their entire ty , citing f

our exemptions to FOI A' s g ener al rule of disclosure. See O' Fe rra ll Decl. ¶ 11. The De partment a lso determined that it would be impra ctical to segreg ate a ny non-exempt information from the e x empt information. See id. ¶ 34. The De fense Depa

rtment has moved f

or summary

judgme nt with respec t to the adequa cy of its se arc h f

or re c or ds , th e pr op ri e ty

of the c la ime d e xemp tio ns and the e ff ic a c y of its
se g re g a bil ity de te rm inatio n. In s up po rt , it ha s su bmi tte d a Va ughn ind e x, the O' F e rr a llRear A dmiral Thomas is the Commander of J oint Task For ce- Guantana mo, which 2 o v er s ee s th e d et en t i o nan d i n t erro gat i o no f e n em y

co mb at an t s atGu an t an am o . S ee De f. 's Com bin e d Re ply

in S up p. of

Mo t. f or Summ. J. a

nd Op p' n to Pl. ' s Cr os s Mo t. f or Part ia l Summ. J . (" Def .' s Reply ") , Ex . 2, Dec laration of Rear A dmiral David M. Thomas, Jr. (" Thomas Dec l.") ¶ 1. B ri g a die r G e ne ra l O ' F e rr a ll i s th e De puty Command e r o f t

he Joint Ta sk F or c e . Se e O' F e rr a ll Dec l. ¶ 1. -3- Dec laration and the Dec laration of Rear A dmiral David M. Thomas, Jr. Plaintiffs challeng e the 2 Depa rtment' s motion for summary judgme nt, contendingthat the Depa rtment' s submissi ons are ina de qu ate to s atis fy

its burd e n und e r F OIA. Pla int if fs ins te a d c on c lud e that th e Court sh ou ld g ra nt s umm ary

jud g me nt i n th e ir

fa vo r; in t he a lte rn ativ e , th e y

re qu e st d isc ov e ry

un de r R ule 56(f)
. STANDARD Un de r R ule 56 of the F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure , s umm ary jud g me nt i s a

pp ro pr iate "if the pleading s . . . and any aff idavits show that there is no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and that the movant is entitled to judg ment as a matter of law ." F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Mater ial fac ts are those that "mig ht affe ct the outcome of the suit under the g overninglaw." Ander son v. L iberty L obby , Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). T he movant bea rs the initial burden of de mon str atin gthe a

bs e nc e of a g e nu ine iss ue of

mate ri a l f

a c t. C e lot e x Cor

p. v. Catr e tt, 47 7 U .S. 31 7, 32 2 ( 19 86 ). Th e pa

rt y op po sin ga

mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt, ho we ve r, " may no t r e ly
mere ly on alleg ations or denials in its own pleading ; rather , its response must -- by aff idavits or as otherw ise provided in this rule -- set out specific fac ts showing a g enuine issue f

or trial." Fe d. R. C iv. P. 5 6( e )( 2) . T he no nmo vin gpa rt y mus t do mor e tha

n s imp ly " sh owthat th e re is s ome
me ta phy sic a l do ub t a s to the mate ri a l f a c ts. " Matsu sh ita

El e c . Ind us . Co ., L td. v. Z e nit

h Ra dio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Any fac tual asser

tions in t he movant' s aff

idavits will be-4-

acc epted a s beingtrue unless the opposingparty submits hi s own aff

idavits or other doc umentary evidenc e contr adictingthe asser tion. Neal v. Ke lly , 963 F.2d 453, 456 ( D.C. Cir. 1992). F OIA r e qu ir e s a

fe de ra l a g e nc y

to r e le a se a ll r e c or ds re sp on siv e to a pr op e r r e qu e st
e xce pt t ho se pr ote c te d f

ro m di sc los ur e by

on e or mor e of nin e e nume rate d e xemp tio ns se t f or th at 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). A district cour t is authorized "to enjoin [a fede ral] ag ency from wi thh old inga g e nc y

re c or ds or

to o rd e r t he pr od uc tio n o f a

ny a g e nc y re c or ds imp ro pe rl y

wi thh e ld from the c omplainant." 5 U .S.C. § 552(a)(4) (B ); see K issinger v. Reporter s Comm. for Fre edom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 139 (1980) . The a g ency has the burde n of provingthat "e ach do c ume nt t

hat f a lls wi thi n th e c la ss r e qu e ste d e ith e r h a s b e e n p ro du c e d, is unid e nti fi a ble , o r i s
w h o l l y e x e mp tf

r o mth e A c t ' s i n s p e c t i o nr e qu i r e m e n t s . " G o l an d v . C e n tr a l In t e l l i g e n c e A g e n c y, 607 F.2d 339, 352 ( D.C. Cir. 1978), cer t. denied, 445 U.S. 927 (1980) ( internal c itation and quotation omitt ed); see also Maydak v. De p' t of J ustice, 218 F .3d 760, 764 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (the g overnme nt has the burde n of provingeac h claimed F OIA exemption). The district court may
awa rd summa ry jud g me nt t o a

n a g e nc y so le ly on the ba sis of

inf or matio n p ro vid e d in

a ff ida vit s
or de c laratio ns that de sc ri be " the do c ume nts and the jus tif ic atio ns fo r n on dis c los ur e wi th
rea sonably

specific detail, demonstrate that the information withheld log ically falls within the claimed e x emption, and ar e not controve rted by either c ontrary

evidenc e in the re cord nor by evidenc e of a g ency

bad fa ith." Military

Audit Project v. Casey , 656 F.2d 724, 738 ( D.C. Cir. 1981); see a lso Vaug hn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826 ( D.C. Cir. 1973), cer t. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974).-5- AN AL YSI S I. Ade quac y o f the De fens e De par tm e nt 's Se ar c h forRe spo nsiv e Re c or ds To preva il on summ ary

judgme nt when the a dequac y of an a g ency' s sear ch is at issue, "the defe nding a g ency

must show bey ond materia l doubt that it has conducted a sear ch
rea sonably

calc ulated to uncove r all re levant docume nts." More ly v. Central Intellige nce Ag e nc y , 5 08 F .3 d 1 10 8, 11 14 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 7) (i nte rn a l qu otatio ns omi tte d) . T he a g e nc y is require d to set forth the sea rch te rms used and the sear ch conduc ted, see Og lesby v. Dep' t of Ar my , 9 20 F .2 d 5 7, 68 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 0) , a s w e ll a s to de sc ri be the str uc tur e of the fi le sy ste ms
se arc he d, se e Churc h o f S c ie nto logy v. Inte rn a l Re ve nu e Se rv ic e , 7 92 F .2 d 1 46 , 1 50 -5 1 ( D. C. Cir . 1 98 6) , a ff

' d, 48 4 U .S. 9 ( 19 87 ). In a dju dic atin gthe se iss ue s, the c ourt " may be wa rr ante d in
re lyingup on

a g e nc y a ff ida vit s. " Mo rl e y , 5 08 F .3 d at 11 16 . B ut r e lia nc e is o nly

a pp ro pr iate whe re t he af

fi dav it s ar e "rela ti vel y

det ail ed an d n on -con clu so ry , an d .
. . subm it tedin goodfai th ." SafeCar d Servs., Inc. v. Secur ities & Exchang e Comm'n, 926 F .2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (quotation omitted). Plaintiffs challeng e the De fense Depa rtment' s motion for summary judgme nt as to the
sc op e of the De pa rtme nt' s se arc h, the se arc h te rm s u se d, and the De pa rtme nt' s d e sc ri pti on

of its file sy stems. The Court takes e ach point in turn. A. Scope of the Search Although a

rea sonable sea

rch doe s not require that "a n ag ency sear ch eve ry

rec ord sy stem," " the ag ency

cannot limit its sear ch to only one re cord sy stem if there are others that ar e lik e ly to t ur n u p th e inf or matio n r e qu e ste d. " Og le sb y , 9 20 F .2 d at 68 . In r e sp on se to p la int if fs '-6-

F OIA r e qu e st, the De fe ns e De pa rtme nt s e arc he d th e re c or ds of thr e e c omp on e nts of

Joint Ta sk F or c e -Gua

nta namo: the Joint

Inte lli g e nc e Gr ou

p, the Joint

De te nti on

Gr ou p, and the Joint Ta sk F or c e ' s O pe ratio ns Di re c tor ate . O ' F e rr a ll D e c l. ¶ 7- 9; s e e a lso Th oma s D e c l. ¶ 22 . A c c or din gto the Depa rtment, no other JointTask F orce component wa s "likely to have r esponsive information be c a us e no oth e r c omp on e nts make sy ste matic us e of the inf or matio n" re qu e ste d b y

pla int if fs
. O' Fe rra ll Decl. ¶ 10. Rea r Admiral Thoma s echoe s this conclusion: "I have no r eason to be lieve that any other JointTask F orce office would have r esponsive re cords." Thomas Dec l. ¶ 22. And the Depa rtment argues that " [n] o other [J oint Task For ce] components have authority for a ny aspec t of the ong oing housing , car e, fe edingor sec urity of the de tainees, nor

do any other components have responsibility for storingrec ords re lating to a ny of these a

rea s." D ef.' s Reply

at 6. The De partment ther efor e asse rts it has satisfied its burden under FOIA. Pla int if fs , f or the ir pa rt , c onte nd

that th e De fe ns e De pa

rtme nt i mpr op e rl y

lim ite d it s
se arc h, and

he nc e " fa ile d to se arc h f

or c e rt a in t y pe s o f r e c or ds that f

e ll s qu are ly

wi thi n Pl a int if

fs ' FOI A reques t. " Pl .'s R epl y to Def. 's Op p'n t o P l. 's C ros s M ot . fo r P art ial S um m. J . ("P l. 's R epl y ") at 2; see a lso Pl .' s Mem. at 10 (" The O' Fe rra ll Declar ation . . . demonstrates that the g overnme nt
c on str uc te d it s se arc he s to o n arr ow ly ." ). F or e xamp le , p la int if

fs no te that th e De fe ns e Depa rtment audio re corde d detainee s' Combatant Status R eview T ribunal (" CSR T" ) proc eeding s. See Pl.'s Me m. at 14-15. And a lthough at least two of the Kuw aiti Detainee s participate d in such proce eding s, plaintiffs sug g est the De partment fa iled to searc h for these rec ords. Pl.'s Reply at 5- 6. Mo re ov e r, pla int if

fs ma int a in t

hat th e g ov e rnme nt a

rt if ic ia lly lim ite d th e sc op e of

the se arc h it did conduct by

seekingrec ords re g ardingonly "housing , car e, fe edingor sec urity of the detainee s." Pl.' s Reply , at 3; see a lso Thomas Dec l. ¶ 22. " By limit ing the scope of

the sea rch,"Th e De fe ns e De pa rtme nt d oe s n ot r e sp on d to pla int if fs ' a sse rt ion

that it imp ro pe rl y 3 limit ed its sear ch to re cording s documentingthe " housing, c are , fee ding or secur ity of the detainee s." -7- p l ai n t i ff s ar gu e, "t h e go v ern m en tp o t en t i al l y m i s s ednum er o u s re s p o n s i v e d o cu m en t s . " P l
. 's Reply at 3. Finally , plaintiffs sug g est that publicly -ava ilable information conf irms the exis tence of other re sponsive rec ords. They note, for e x ample, that under the standar d operating pr ocedur es fo r t he Gu anta

namo d e te nti on

c e nte rs , th e g ov e rnme nt i s r e qu ir e d to take and ma int a in ph oto g ra ph s o f d e ta ine e s e ng a g e d in hung e r s tr ike s. Se e Pl. ' s Me m., Ex. 4 b, Camp D e lta Stand ard Op e ratin gPr oc e dure s, 28 Marc h 2 00 3 § 19 -8 k. Ac c or din gto m e dic a l r e c or ds , " at le a st
on e of the Kuwa iti De ta ine e s h a s g on e on a hung e r s tr ike ." Pl. ' s Re ply at 10 . N e ve rt

he le ss plaintiffs asser

t "[t] here is no indication that the g overnme nt searc hed the hung er strike photos for imag es of this Kuwa iti Detainee." I d. Al tho ug h th e De fe ns e De pa rtme nt c on c e de s it

did no t se arc h f

or re c or ds of

the CSRT s, it
a s s e rts th at " a

D O D o r g an iz ati o nc o mp le te ly s e p ar ate an d

d is ti n c t f r o m [ th e Jo int T a s k

F o r c e ]" maintains the rec ords. Def .' s Reply at n.4. Fur

ther, a ccor ding to the D epar tment, these re cords "a re publica lly

available , in transcr ipt form." I d., at 13-14. The Depa rtment there fore conclude s that it wa s unn e c e ssa

ry to i nc lud e the se re c or ds in i ts s e arc h. I d. F ina lly , w ithre g ard to pla int if fs ' c onte nti on

that th e De fe ns e De pa

rtme nt d id n ot s e arc h r e c or ds re qu ir e d b y Camp Delta' s Standard Ope ratingProcedur es, the De partment off ers that this information wa s either
ma int a ine d b y

the thr e e c omp on e nts that w e re se arc he d o r " no t r e c or de d b y [the Joint

Ta sk For ce.]" Thomas Dec l. ¶ 28a-28h. 3At the ver y least, the De partment did not explain why it only sear ched r ecor ds relating 4 t o h o u s i n g , c ar e , f

e e d i n go r s e c ur i ty. B e c a us e the De fe ns e De pa

rtme nt d id n ot a de qu ate ly se arc h it s r e c or ds in r e sp on se to 5 plaintiffs' FOIA re quest, the Court nee d not addre ss all of plaintiffs' arguments challeng ing the a de qu a c y of the De pa rtme nt' s se arc h. Ce rt a inl y , th e De pa rtme nt m us t se arc h th e re c or ds of

a ll Def ense D epar

tment components likely

to have r eleva

nt documents. See Weisbergv. Dep' t of J ustice, 705 F .2d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (se arc h must be "r easona bly calc ulated to uncove r all rele vant documents" ). Additionally , the Court notes the De partment' s broad de finition of -8- The De fense Depa

rtment' s sear ch wa s inadequate. It did not search r ecor ds maintained by Def ense D epar

tment components other than those within J oint Task For ce- Guantana mo. See Def .' s Reply , at n.4. Nor, a

ppare ntly , did it search r ecor ds of the Kuwa iti Detainees othe r than those documentinghousing, c are , fee ding or secur ity
. Plaintiffs' F OIA re quest was not limited

4 either to pa

rticular D efe nse De partment c omponents or to rec ords documentingparticula r activities. See Og lesby , 920 F.2d at 68 (" [T] he ag ency cannot limit its sear ch to only one re cord sy ste m if the re are oth e rs that are lik e ly to t ur n u p th e inf or matio n r e qu e ste d. " ). An d p la int if fs ' reque st seeks " any

rec ording " de picting the Kuwaiti Deta inees. Compl., Ex . A at 1. The De pa rtme nt i s th e re fo re inc or

re c t th at it

ne e d n ot p ro du c e a

ud io o r v ide o r e c or din g s o f C SRT proce eding s beca

use transc ripts are publicly available
. Henc e, summary

judgme nt is appropriate for plaintiffs on the adequa cy of the scope of the Def ense D epar

tment's se arc h. There is no ge nuine issue of mate rial fa ct re g ardingthe Depa rtment' s failure to searc h Def ense D epar

tment components beyond J oint Task For ceGuantana mo. Nor is there a g enuine dispute that the D epar tment's se arc h for r ecor ds do c ume nti ngon ly

the Kuwa iti De ta ine e s' ho us ing , c are , f e e din gor se c ur ity wa s in a pp ro pr iate ly limit ed. The g overnme nt will therefor e be r equire d to searc h rec ords of the D efe nse De partment
and its c omp on e nts fo r d oc ume nts re sp on siv e to p la int if fs ' F OIA r e qu e st. 5" F or c e d Ce ll E xtra c tio n, " wh ic h th e De pa rtme nt s ug g e sts lim its the numbe r o f p ote nti a lly responsive doc uments. See De f.' s Reply at 14. Plaintiffs contend that Camp De lta' s Standard Oper atingProcedur es do not support this definition. S ee Pl.' s Reply at 9. The Court be lieves the Depa rtment' s new sea

rch w ill resolve any

conce rns ra ised by

the Depa rtment' s definition. -9- B . D es c ri

p t io n o f t h eS e a r c h T e r ms When respondingto a FO IA re quest, an a g ency must set "for

th the sear ch ter

ms and the ty pe of se arc h perf

ormed, a nd aver [] that all files likely to contain re sponsive materia ls (if such
rec ords exist ) we re se arc hed . . . ." Og lesby , 920 F.2d at 68. In support of its inquiry , the Def ense D epar

tment has submitted two declar ations expl ainingwhich sea rch te rms wer e used, and why the terms we re c hosen. See, e .g ., Thomas Dec l. ¶ 25 (Joi nt Detention Group r ecor ds
sear ched a ccor ding to how the y wer e indexed -- by

inmate sec urity

number); id. at ¶

23 (O pe ratio ns Di re c tor ate re c or ds se arc he d b y de ta ine e ' s n ame , c ountr

y of or ig in, and

inm ate
secur ity number); id. at ¶

24 (Joi nt Intellige nce G roup re cords se arc hed by detainee ' s name a

nd inmate sec urity

number). T hese de clar ations also explain why cer tain rec ords wer e not sea

rche d. See, e.g ., id. at ¶ 6 (JointTask F orce ' s Security Direc torate r ecor ds not searc hed bec ause the y we re ind e xed

by date ; f ind inga pa rt ic ula r d e ta ine e " wo uld

re qu ir e kn ow le dg e of

the e xac t date and time that the deta inee wa lked by a par ticular c amer a" ); Def

.' s Reply at 11 (" [T] here was no fe a sib le me tho d to se arc h [th e Se c ur ity Di re c tor ate fi le s] f

or re c or ds re sp on siv e to P la int if fs ' FOIA re quest." ). Although pla intiffs initi ally challeng ed the De partment' s "limited or undisclosed se arc h terms," see Pl.' s Mem. at 10-12, they larg ely dropped this cha lleng e in re sponse to the Thomas De c laratio n. Ne ve rt

he le ss, pla int if

fs ma int a in t

hat th e De pa

rtme nt f a ile d to a de qu ate ly

e xpla in why it did not s ear ch re cords that a re not indexed by

unique identifying inf

ormation, such as-10-

inmate sec urity

number a nd name. See Pl.'s Reply at 3-4. Spec ifically , plaintiffs asser t that the "g overnme nt provides no detail on the volume of this material or a

ny rea l estimate of the time or cost that it would incur in revie wingthe tapes." I d. at 4. Acc ording ly , plaintiffs asser t, the g overnme nt "c annot claim it conducte d an ade quate se arc h." I d. (citingSchrec ker v. D ep' t of J ustice, 254 F .3d 162, 165 (D.C. Cir. 2001)). Plaintiffs are c orre ct. The D efe nse De partment, by not providing a

ny detail on whethe r a
sear ch of r ecor ds index ed by date would be "unduly

burdensome," has fa iled to demonstrate the
re as o n ab l en es s o f i t s s ea rc ht erm s . S ee S ch re ck er , 2 5 4 F. 3 d at1 6 5
. Al th o u ghth e D ep artm en t 's
c la im o f i nf

e a sib ili ty a s to re c or ds ind e xed

by date may we ll b e c or

re c t, t he Court c ann ot c re dit thi s b are a sse rt ion . T he De pa rtme nt t he re fo re mus t e ith e r s e arc h th e se re c or ds or de mon str ate why it would be impractica l to do so. C. Desc ription of the Agency's File System Finally , for a

FOIA sea

rch to be rea sonable, the a g ency must also "identify

the sea rche d files and de scribe a

t least g ener ally

the structure of the a g ency' s file sy stem." Churc h of Scientology , 792 F.2d at 151. The De fense Depa rtment has satisfied this re quirement. The Thomas Dec laration describes the structure of Joi nt Task For ce- Guantana mo and the re cords
m ai n t ai n edb y

i t s o ff i ce s an d s u b o rd i n at e c o mp o n en t s . S ee T h o m as De cl
. ¶¶4 -2 0 ; s ee al s o De f. 's R ep l y at6 -1 3
. An d

th e d ec l ar at i o np erm i t s p l ai n t i ff s t o ev al u at e t h e D ef

en s e D ep artm en t 's
a sse rt ion that on ly thr e e c omp on e nts of

the Joint Ta sk F or c e ma int a in r e c or ds re sp on siv e to plaintiffs' reque st. This is s ufficie nt for the g overnme nt to carr y its burden under

FOIA. See Og le sb y , 9 20 F .2 d at 68 ; Chur c h o f S c ie nto logy , 7 92 F .2 d at 15 0- 51 . Ind e e d, pla int if fs larg e ly drop this challeng e in their reply brief. T he Court notes, howe ver, that goingforwa rd, theThe De fense Depa rtment subsequently

withdrew its withholding of the photog raphs on 6 Ex emption 1 gr ounds. See De f.' s Reply at 3. -11- Def ense D epar

tment must fully

descr ibe the re cords it sea rche s pursuant to the Court' s order
. An d it mus t us e te rm s r e a so na

bly c a lc ulate d to pr od

uc e re sp on siv e re c or ds
. II. P r opr ie tyof Wi th hol ding Do c um e nt s U nde r F OIA 's E xe m pt ion s Th e De fe ns e De pa

rtme nt h a s a lso mov e d f

or summa ry jud g me nt o n th e pr op ri e ty of its withholdings under

four of the statutory

exemptions to FOIA' s g ener al rule of disclosure. "[W] hen an a g ency

seeks to withhold information, it must provide a re latively detailed justification, specifica lly

identifying the rea sons why a par ticular e x emption is relevant a nd
corr ela ti ng th os e cl aim s w it h t he p art icu lar partof a w it hh elddo cum entto whi ch t hey app ly ." Mo rl e y , 5 08 F .3 d at 11 22 . T his jus tif ic atio n - - a

Va ughn ind e x -- " mus t e xpla in s pe c if ic a lly wh i ch o f t h e n i n e s t atu t o ry ex emp t i o n s t o FO IA's gen er al ru l e o f d i s cl o s ure s u p p o rt s th e a gen cy 's deci si onto wi th ho lda reques teddo cum entor t o d ele te i nfo rm ati onfro m a r ele aseddo cum ent ." FoundingChurch of Scie ntology , Inc. v. B ell, 603 F.2d 945, 947 ( D.C. Cir. 1979); see a lso Vaughn, 484 F.2d at 827. There fore a " [c] ateg orica l description of re dacte d materia l coupled wi th cat egori cal in di cat io n o f ant ici pat ed co ns equ ences of d is clo su re i s cl earl y in adequat e." Morley , 508 F.3d at 1122. The De fense Depa

rtment has withheld video, photog raphic and other responsive r ecor ds purs ua nt t o E xemp tio ns 1, 2, 3 a nd 6. In s up po rt

of its wi thh old ing , th e De pa rtme nt s ub mit s a 6 one-pa g e Va

ug hn index purportedly

cover ing nine ty -two re cords, a nd two decla

rations descr ibing g ener ally

the re asons for w ithholding the re cords. The se submissions are inade quate. The De partment mer ely

lists t he asse rted e x emptions by document. The Depa

rtment does notTh is i na de qu a c y is p art ic ula

rl y e vid e nt whe n th e Va

ughn ind e x for the se re c or ds is 7 compar ed to the De fense Depa rtment' s Vaughn index for medical re cords, the latter of whic h encompa sses twenty -four pag es and outlines in detail what information has bee n withheld from eac h unique document. See Def .' s Mem., Ex . 1. Telling ly , plaintiffs did not object to that Vaughn index. S ee Pl.' s Mem. at n.2. -12- "subdivide the document[s] under c onsideration into manag eable parts cr oss-ref ere nced to the
re le va nt p or tio n o f t he g ov e rnme nt' s ju sti fi c atio n. " Va ughn , 4 84 F .2 d at 82 7. No r d oe s it descr ibe how the a sserted e x emptions apply to the withheld documents. I d. And the De partment do e s n ot c on sid e r u

niq ue do c ume nts se pa

ra te ly ; r athe r, it c ate g or ic a lly a pp lie s e a c h e xemp tio n to g roups of doc uments. Contra Morley , 508 F.3d at 1122. This Court cannot fairly assess the propriety of the e x emption claims beca use there is a dea

rth of " rea sonably

specific detail" about how the exemptions apply to the documents as a

whole. Casey , 656 F.2d at 738. 7 Nor a re the se def

iciencie s cure d by

the O' Fe rra ll Declar ation and the Thoma s Dec laration. Those dec larations, li ke the Va ug hn index, do notexplain with t he nec essar y detail how a particula r exemption supports the Depar tment's de cision to withhold a responsive docume nt. See Be ll, 603 F.2d at 946. Rather , the dec larations sim ply asser t, in ge nera l terms, the justifications fo r w ithho ldi ngdo c ume nts . Se e , e .g ., Th oma s D e c l. ¶ 24 (r e le a se of

a ud io r e c or din g" wo uld

ri sk dis c los ingint e lli g e nc e so ur c e s and me tho ds , c a

us ing ha rm to n atio na l se c ur ity " ); O' F e rr a ll D e c l. ¶ 28 (r elea se of a

udio rec ording"w ould permit hostile entities to gain spec ific knowledg e of the operational methods employ ed in ce rtain circ umstances, whic h would provide them a n opportunity

to develop counte rmea sures or r esistence to tactics" ); I d. at ¶ 27 (r elea se of f orce d cell extraction video " would permit hostile entities to ga in specific know ledg e of the operational
me tho ds e mpl oye d in

c e rt a in c ir c ums tanc e s, wh ic h w ou ld p ro vid e the m an o pp or tun ity to develop c ountermea sures or r esistence to tactics" ); I d. at ¶ 33 (f orce d cell extraction videosOf c ours e , if the De fe ns e De pa

rtme nt w ish e s to wi thh old do c ume nts fo un d p ur su ant t o 8 the new se arc h order ed her e, it must submi t a Vaughn index and accompa nying de clar ations justifying the exemptions for those r ecor ds as well. -13- "c ontain persona lly

identifiable infor

mation of [ex trac tion] team member s") . Although the Court
c an c e rt a inl y

ima g ine that th e a sse rt e d ju sti fi c atio ns may be va lid a s to so me of

the wi thh e ld
rec ords, it cannot conc lude they are cate g orica lly

valid as to all withheld rec ords No ne of the De pa rtme nt' s ju sti fi c atio ns are mor e tha n " va gue , b ro a d [and ] wh ole sa le claims of exempt status." Elec . Privacy Info. Ctr.v. Dep' t of J ustice, 511 F . Supp. 2d 56, 73 (D.D.C. 2007). The Depa rtment does not, as re quired by Vaughn, marry

a spec ific exemption with a par ticular pa rt of the withheld doc ument. See PHE, Inc. v. De p' t of J ustice, 983 F .2d 248, 250 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (" [A] n aff idavit that contains mere ly a categ orica l description of re dacte d
mate ri a ls c ou

ple d w ithc ate g or ic a l in dic atio n o f a nti c ipate d c on se qu e nc e s o f d isc los ur e is c le arl y inadequate." (interna l quotation omit ted)). H ence , the Depa rtment has not provided this Court with sufficiently

detailed e x planations of why the claimed e x emptions are r eleva nt, and
corr elated, to the w ithheld rec ords. See Morle y , 508 F.3d at 1122. W i th o u tth i s d et ai l , th e C o urtca n n o tas s es s th e v al i d i ty o f t h e D ef

en s e D ep artm en t 's claims of exemption. Accor dingly , both parties' motions for summary judgme nt will be denied wi tho ut p re

jud ic e a s to the e xemp tio n c la ims . I f t he De pa rtme nt w ish e s to ma int a in i ts exemption claims, i t must suppl ement its Vaughn submissi on. In doing so, the Depa rtment 8 sh ou ld b e min df

ul o f i ts d uty to s e g re g ate a ll n on -e xemp t mate ri a l - - a n is su e no t a de qu ate ly addre ssed throug h its curre nt Vaug hn submissi on.-14- CO NC LU SION For these re asons, plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgme nt will be gr anted in par t
and de nie d in pa rt . Pl a int if

fs ' mot ion wi ll b e g ra

nte d w ithre sp e c t to the a de qu a c y of the De fe ns e Depa rtment' s sear ch. The Depa rtment is require d to conduct a ne w sea rch of the re cords of

the Def ense D epar

tment and its components for doc uments responsive to plaintiffs' FOIA re quest. Both pa rties' motions wil l be denied w ithout prejudice a s to the Defe nse De partment' s exempti on claims. The De partment' s Vaughn index i s inadequate and c onclusory , and ther efor e this Court cannot judg e the pr opriety of the e x emption claims. Finally , judgme nt will be entere d in favor of the Def ense D epar

tment as to production of the me dical re cords. A se parate Orde r ac companies this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/ JohnD. B ate s J OHN D. B ATES Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge Dated: Septembe r 25, 2009