Opinion ID: 2308051
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Facts and Procedural History Relevant to Plaintiffs' Cross-Appeal

Text: Many of the documents released by the Government in response to Plaintiffs' FOIA requests relate to the use of EITs. During the course of this litigation, the President prohibited the future use of certain EITs, including waterboarding, formerly authorized for use on high-value detainees. [2] On May 7, 2009, the district court ordered the Government to compile a list of documents related to the contents of 92 destroyed videotapes of detainee interrogations that occurred between April and December 2002 and which would otherwise have been responsive to Plaintiffs' FOIA requests. Pursuant to that order, the CIA identified 580 documents and selected a sample of 65 documents for the district court to review for potential release. Specifically, the sample records comprise:  53 cables (operational communications) between CIA headquarters and an interrogation facility;  3 emails postdating the videotapes' destruction;  2 logbooks detailing observations of interrogation sessions;  1 set of handwritten notes from a meeting between a CIA employee and a CIA attorney;  2 memoranda containing descriptions of the contents of the videotapes;  1 set of handwritten notes taken during a review of the videotapes;  2 records summarizing details of waterboard exposures from the destroyed videotapes; and  1 photograph of Abu Zubaydah dated October 11, 2002. The Government withheld these records pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment with regard to whether the records were exempt from disclosure. [3] The Government defended its withholding of the records with three declarations of then-CIA Director Leon Panetta. The declarations explained that the records consist primarily of communications to CIA headquarters from a covert CIA facility where interrogations were being conducted, and include sensitive intelligence and operational information concerning interrogations of Abu Zubaydah. Panetta Decl. ¶ 5, June 8, 2009. With respect to Exemption 3, the declarations explained that, if disclosed, the records would reveal intelligence sources and methods employed by the CIA, as well as the organization and functions of the CIA, including the conduct of clandestine intelligence activities to collect intelligence from human sources using interrogation methods. Id. ¶¶ 32, 35. With respect to Exemption 1, the declarations asserted that the records were properly classified pursuant to Executive Order No. 12,958 and that their disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in harm to national security. In response, Plaintiffs argued that the EITs were not intelligence methods within the meaning of the CIA's withholding authorities because they had been repudiated, and, in the case of waterboarding, declared unlawful by the President. Plaintiffs also argued that the CIA had failed to provide any explanation for withholding the photograph of Abu Zubaydah under either Exemption 1 or 3. On September 30, 2009, the district court reviewed the photograph and a portion of the sample records in an ex parte, in camera session. The district court made preliminary rulings upholding the Government's nondisclosure of all but one document. That document is not at issue in Plaintiffs' cross-appeal. With respect to the photograph of Abu Zubaydah, the Government asserted that it was actually a CIA photo of a person in custody, and the court accepted the Government's position that a photograph of a detainee reveals a lot more information than the detainee's identity. During the public hearing, the district court rejected Plaintiffs' argument that the President's declaration was a sufficient basis for rejecting the Government's position. The district court explained that it would decline to rule on the question of legality or illegality in the context of a FOIA request. J.A. 1105-06. Rebuffing Plaintiffs' argument that the photo should be produced because the Government offered no justification for its withholding, the district court sustained the withholding and explained that the image of a person in a photograph is another aspect of information that is important in intelligence gathering. J.A. 1115. The district court memorialized its rulings in an October 13, 2009 order. In sustaining the withholding of the records under FOIA Exemption 3, the district court concluded that the CIA had satisfied its burden of showing that the release of the records could reasonably be expected to lead to unauthorized disclosure of intelligence sources and methods. The district court also rejected Plaintiffs' argument that records relating to illegal activities are beyond the scope of Exemption 3. In a July 15, 2010 order, the district court denied Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of its October 2009 order. In doing so, the district court reaffirmed its view that neither statutory language nor case law supports Plaintiffs' contention that the legality of the underlying intelligence source or method bears upon the validity of an Exemption 3 withholding. On October 1, 2010, the district court entered partial final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), granting Plaintiffs summary judgment with regard to the Government's withholding of the classified information in the two OLC memoranda, and granting the Government summary judgment with regard to the nondisclosure of records related to the contents of the destroyed videotapes and the photograph. Plaintiffs limit their cross-appeal to those records reflecting the CIA's use of waterboarding and to the photograph of Abu Zubaydah.