Opinion ID: 735823
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: United States Coast Guard

Text: 3 Plaintiff requested from the Coast Guard all documents pertaining to him and to its investigation of his involvement in drug-related crime. 2 The Coast Guard released one file, with redactions that plaintiff does not contest, but withheld a file classified as secret under Executive Order 12,356 (April 2, 1982), published at 47 Fed.Reg. 14,874. It has released segregated portions of the classified file and has unclassified one portion of the file since this action commenced. 4 The court examined in camera and ex parte the classified declaration of Rear Admiral Norman T. Saunders, 3 which describes in detail the reasons for withholding portions of the file. The court concluded that FOIA's national security exemption applies. Plaintiff argues that: the court erred in applying the exemption; it was required to determine the segregability of withheld portions; and its in camera review of Rear Admiral Saunders's classified declaration was both improper and inadequate. We reject each of these arguments.
5 We have jurisdiction to order disclosure of agency materials only if they have been withheld improperly. See Kissinger v. Reporters' Committee, 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1979) (holding that federal jurisdiction over FOIA claim depends on a showing that an agency has (1) 'improperly'; (2) 'withheld'; (3) 'agency records.' ). Withholding is proper if one of FOIA's nine exemptions applies. 6 We employ a unique two-step standard to review the district court's application of an exemption. First, we determine whether an adequate factual basis supports the ruling. If not, we must reverse; if so, we next inquire whether the ruling was clearly erroneous. Rosenfeld v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 57 F.3d 803, 807 (9th Cir.1995), cert. dismissed, 116 S.Ct. 833 (1996). 7 The national security exemption protects from disclosure all materials specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)(A). Because FOIA imposes a presumption of disclosure, the Coast Guard bears the burden of proving that the exemption applies. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3); Environmental Protection Agency v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 79 (1972). 8 An affidavit or index setting forth detailed justifications for withholding documents satisfies the agency's burden. Ollestad v. Kelley, 573 F.2d 1109, 1110 (9th Cir.1978); see also Mink, 410 U.S. at 84; Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 823-27 (D.C.Cir.1973). It need not discuss each document; categorical descriptions may suffice. Gallant v. N.L.R.B., 26 F.3d 168, 172 (D.C.Cir.1994). And, although the affidavit may not be vague or conclusory, it need not specify its objections in such detail as to compromise the secrecy of the information. Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 611 F.2d 738, 742 (9th Cir.1979). 9 We accord substantial weight to the agency's conclusions set forth in its affidavits. Hunt v. C.I.A., 981 F.2d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir.1992); Hayden v. Nat'l Security Agency, 608 F.2d 1381, 1387 (D.C.Cir.1979) (citing S.Rep. 1200, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 12 (1974)). We will disregard them only if presented with either contradictions in the record or evidence of bad faith on the part of the agency. Ibid. Contrary to plaintiff's arguments, the record presents neither. Accordingly, we accept as credible Rear Admiral Saunders's conclusions. 10 The declaration explains that all documents withheld are classified as secret under Executive Order 12,356, which provides:  'Secret' shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security. Id. at § 1.1(a)(2), 47 Fed.Reg. at 14,875. 4 Rear Admiral Saunders states in the declaration that he has examined the documents at issue and has determined that the Secret classification is justified. Declaration p 12. He further states that all non-secret aspects of all responsive documents were released to the plaintiff. Id. at pp 12, 14. 11 The declaration is not, as plaintiff argues, comparable to the affidavits found insufficient in Weiner v. F.B.I., 943 F.2d 972 (9th Cir.1991). In Weiner, the agency affidavits did not even explain which exemptions were claimed for withheld documents, but presented alternate reasons in boilerplate phrasing. Id. at 978-79. 5 Instead of explaining precisely what harm would result from disclosure, the affidavits listed harms that might, hypothetically, occur. Id. at 980-81. 12 By contrast, the Saunders declaration relates concrete information about specific documents or categories of documents. It describes the Coast Guard Intelligence Program in detail, particularly its reliance on intelligence as a force multiplier for maritime law enforcement. Declaration p 7. It explains that the withheld documents contain information about sensitive intelligence sources and methods. Id. Disclosure would compromise these intelligence sources and methods together with the degree of success of those methods and their vulnerabilities, thus depriving the Coast Guard of their use. Id. at p 16. Such losses are extremely harmful to the Coast Guard's effectiveness and to the national security interests of the United States. Id. at p 8. Disclosure also would reveal U.S. intelligence capabilities and facilitate the development of countermeasures. Id. at pp 10, 13. 13 Because this declaration meets the Coast Guard's burden to show that the documents withheld reasonably could be expected to harm national security, we find an adequate factual foundation to support the court's ruling and no clear error.
14 FOIA requires that [a]ny reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). We generally require district courts to make explicit findings as to the segregability of withheld documents. See Church of Scientology, 611 F.2d at 743. Where, however, a court examines a classified declaration rather than the disputed documents themselves, such findings are neither possible nor required. See Becker v. I.R.S., 34 F.3d 398 (7th Cir.1994). Further, the record demonstrates that plaintiff has received segregated portions of classified documents.
15 It is well settled that a court may examine an agency declaration in camera and ex parte when release of the declaration would disclose the very information that the agency seeks to protect. Pollard v. F.B.I., 705 F.2d 1151, 1153-54 (9th Cir.1983). Plaintiff was not entitled to view the classified Saunders declaration. 16 Next, the court did not err by examining a classified declaration rather then the documents themselves. Church of Scientology, 611 F.2d at 742 (If the agency supplies a reasonably detailed affidavit ..., then the district court need look no further in determining whether an exemption applies.). Substitution of an affidavit is preferred when the national security exemption applies. Mink, 410 U.S. at 84. 17