Opinion ID: 1356581
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The NSA's Affidavits in This Case

Text: As we stated above, the agency resisting disclosure has the burden of proving the applicability of a FOIA exemption and may may meet its burden by submitting a detailed affidavit showing that the information logically falls within the claimed exemptions. Minier, 88 F.3d at 800 (internal quotation marks omitted). At oral argument before our Court, plaintiffs argued that the NSA had not met its burden and that the government's declarations were inadequate to support its invocation of Glomar. We are not entirely convinced that plaintiffs preserved this argument, [7] but even if we were to reach the merits of whether the government's affidavits are sufficient, we agree with the District Court that the NSA has met its burden in this case. An agency that has withheld responsive documents pursuant to a FOIA exemption can carry its burden to prove the applicability of the claimed exemption by affidavit, and we review the agency's justifications therein de novo. Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies v. Dep't of Justice, 331 F.3d 918, 926 (D.C.Cir.2003); see also 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). Summary judgment is warranted on the basis of agency affidavits when the 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. Ultimately, an agency's justification for invoking a FOIA exemption is sufficient if it appears logical or plausible. Larson, 565 F.3d at 862 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In evaluating an agency's Glomar response, a court must accord substantial weight to the agency's affidavits. Minier, 88 F.3d at 800 (internal quotation marks omitted). In according such weight to the affidavits on which the District Court relied, we conclude that they provide sufficient detail that the question of the existence or nonexistence of the requested records falls within Exemption 3 of FOIA. The NSA asserts that it cannot provide any more information without doing cognizable harm, and we agree. The affidavits sufficiently establish that nondisclosure is appropriateperhaps essentialfor reasons of national security and confidentiality. Minor details of intelligence information may reveal more information than their apparent insignificance suggests because, much like a piece of jigsaw puzzle, [each detail] may aid in piecing together other bits of information even when the individual piece is not of obvious importance in itself. Larson, 565 F.3d at 864 (alterations in original). In the interest of thoroughness, the District Court provided a detailed explanation and analysis of the affidavits submitted by the NSA to support its claim that even confirming or denying the existence of the requested records would cause a harm that the exemptions to FOIA seek to avoid. We adopt that analysis as follows: Defendants contend that [a]cknowledging the existence or non-existence of the information requested by Plaintiffs' FOIA Request No. 1 would unquestionably reveal NSA's organization, functions and activities by revealing the success or failure of NSA's activities. In support of this contention, they have submitted affidavits from Joseph J. Brand, Associate Director, Community Integration, Policy and Records for the NSA; J. Michael McConnell, Director of National Intelligence; and David M. Hardy, Section Chief of the Record/Information Dissemination Section, Records Management Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation. In his affidavit, Brand avers that the TSP is a SIGINT program that [is] critical to the national security of the United States. Operation of the TSP depends upon the collection of electronic communications, which can be easily compromised if targets are made aware of NSA capabilities and priorities. Giving the Glomar Response to FOIA Request No. 1 was essential, Brand attests, because [a]cknowledging the existence or non existence of those individuals or organizations subject to surveillance would provide our adversaries with critical information about the capabilities and limitations of the NSA, such as the types of communications that may be susceptible to NSA detection. Confirmation by NSA that a person's activities are not of foreign intelligence interest or that NSA is unsuccessful in collecting foreign intelligence information on their activities on a case-by-case basis would allow our adversaries to accumulate information and draw conclusions about NSA's technical capabilities, sources, and methods. Similarly, McConnell states that [t]o confirm or deny whether someone is a target of surveillance ... would reveal to our adversaries that an individual may or may not be available as a secure means for communicating or, more broadly, the methods being used to conduct surveillance. The disclosure of such information would run afoul of Section 6 of the NSAA, Brand contends, because it would reveal the sources of intelligence ... and would tend to reveal the methods by which such intelligence is collected.... Further, confirmation or denial of this information would reveal the limitations of NSA SIGINT capabilities. Even the disclosure of what appears to be the most innocuous information about the TSP poses a threat to national security, McConnell avers, because it might permit our adversaries to piece together sensitive information about how the Program operated, the capabilities, scope and effectiveness of the Program and our current capability, which would be utilized by the enemy to allow them to plan their terrorist activities more securely. These affidavits demonstrate that the documents sought in FOIA Request No. 1 relate to the organization or any function of the National Security Agency and seek information with respect to the activities thereof, Pub.L. No. 86-36, § 6, 73 Stat. 63, 64, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 402, all of which are exempted from disclosure by Section 6 of the NSAA. The affidavits aver that the TSP is a SIGINT program, and signals intelligence is one of [NSA's] primary functions; the release of the SIGINT information would disclose information with respect to [NSA] activities, since any information about an intercepted communication concerns an NSA activity. Hayden, 608 F.2d at 1389. Moreover, the affidavits explain in detailed, nonconclusory fashion, Wood v. FBI, 432 F.3d 78, 85 (2d Cir.2005), why the Glomar Response is appropriate. The affidavits thus giv[e] reasonably detailed explanations why any withheld documents fall within an exemption, and are therefore sufficient to sustain the agency's burden. Carney, 19 F.3d at 812. Wilner, 2008 WL 2567765, at -5.