Opinion ID: 1237924
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The FOIA Requests and Proceedings in the District Court

Text: Lahr, a former Navy and commercial pilot and a member of the Air Line Pilots Association, believes the TWA Flight 800 investigation resulted in a massive government cover-up of the real cause of the crash. The true story, according to Lahr, is that an errant Navy missile caused the crash. The zoom-climb theory is not plausible, Lahr maintains, and was fraudulently concocted to mislead the public. Lahr, in an attempt to prove his thesis, made 145 FOIA requests to the NTSB in October 2003. Lahr informed the NTSB that he was seeking the NTSB's zoom-climb data and calculations in order to validate or invalidate the NTSB's and CIA's zoom-climb conclusions. He further elaborated: The FOIA Requests are for all records upon which all publicly released aircraft flight path climb-conclusions are based, including, but not limited to, the underlying data and basis of all written reports and all video-animation-depictions. This includes but is not limited to all computer simulation and animation programs, and the data entered into all such programs, in each case correlating which data was entered into which program. At the same time, Lahr made 105 FOIA requests to the CIA. Citing the November 1997 video depiction of the aircraft's trajectory, Lahr indicated that the request was for all records on which the CIA based its conclusions regarding the aircraft's climb and flight path, including those reported in the video depiction. In response to these requests, both agencies conducted searches for responsive records. They released certain documents (some of which were redacted), withheld some documents, and found no responsive documents for some requests. Dissatisfied with the agencies' responses, Lahr filed this lawsuit under FOIA. The agencies moved for summary judgment, contending that their searches were adequate and that their withholding of certain records or parts of records was proper under various statutory exemptions. On the government's summary judgment motions, the district court, in two thorough opinions, decided in Lahr's favor on 26 of the 32 disputed requests. The government appeals only one aspect of the district court's ruling. The agencies released eleven documents with the names of eyewitnesses and FBI agents redacted, citing Exemptions 6 and 7(C) of FOIA. [6] On summary judgment, the district court ordered the agencies to release these names, holding that the public interest in disclosure outweighed the privacy interests of the witnesses and agents. The agencies appeal from this decision. Lahr cross-appeals several of the district court's rulings. The agencies withheld four documents [7] under FOIA Exemption 5, relating to documents protected under the deliberative process privilege. [8] The district court held that Exemption 5 applied to these documents, as they were both predecisional and deliberative and thus properly withheld from disclosure. Lahr's FOIA request also sought information about the agencies' computer simulations. He asked for the software programs used by the CIA and the NTSB in running their simulations, as well as the data inputs the agencies used to generate their results. Although the district court required the government to disclose most of the programs themselves, it held that the agencies could withhold much of the data, including the data inputs used by the BALLISTIC program that Lahr claims determined the aircraft's flight path after the explosion. Lahr appeals from this decision. Lahr also contends that the agencies' search for responsive records was inadequate. The district court held the government's search adequate in some respects but not others. On appeal, Lahr contests the district court's conclusion that certain aspects of the agencies' search were adequate. Finally, Lahr contends that the government's affidavit pursuant to Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C.Cir.1973) generally known as the  Vaughn indexinsufficiently described the documents withheld by the agencies and the FOIA exemptions that apply to them. For the reasons stated below, we reverse the district court's conclusion that the government must disclose the names of the eyewitnesses and FBI agents, and affirm the remainder of the district court's rulings. [9]