Opinion ID: 669641
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The FBI Search.

Text: 24 1. Adequacy. The declaration of Steven Auerswald describes how the FBI conducted its search. Notably more detailed than the Wood Declaration, it describes with particularity the files that were searched, the manner in which they were searched, and the results of the search. Based on this affidavit, the district court concluded that the record discloses an informed, detailed search of likely sources.... There is no doubt about completeness. Memorandum at 3. Appellant nonetheless complains that the FBI failed to examine nineteen documents and six files that were cross-referenced in several of the disclosed documents. 25 We are not persuaded by appellant's argument. As the district court noted, the FBI was involved in several ongoing investigations of the LaRouche organization. It should therefore come as no surprise that other LaRouche documents and files were cross-referenced in the documents that were produced. But mere reference to other files does not establish the existence of documents that are relevant to appellant's FOIA request. If that were the case, an agency responding to FOIA requests might be forced to examine virtually every document in its files, following an interminable trail of cross-referenced documents like a chain letter winding its way through the mail. As FOIA clearly does not impose this burden upon federal agencies, we uphold the district court's grant of summary judgment to the government on the adequacy of the FBI's search. 26 2. Exemption 1--Classified Material. The FBI withheld portions of three documents pursuant to FOIA exemption 1, which allows an agency to withhold records specifically authorized under criteria established under an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and ... are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(b)(1). Appellant claims that the district court had no way of assessing the appropriateness of the FBI's reliance on this exemption because the court did not examine unredacted copies of the documents, and because the Department's Vaughn index described the documents only by number and date. 27 We uphold the application of exemption 1. Appellant is mistaken that the district court did not examine unredacted copies of the three documents. See Memorandum at 1 (the court has conducted an in camera inspection of the full text of the documents released to plaintiff in redacted form). As the three documents subject to exemption 1 were among the eighteen documents released by the FBI, we must assume that the district court examined them. In addition, the Hurst Declaration provides a full and fair explanation for the invocation of exemption 1 as to each of the three documents.