Opinion ID: 403761
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The In Camera Vaughn Index

Text: 26 We find Yeager's two remaining claims concerning the NADDIS records more troublesome. He asserts that the DEA's Vaughn submissions did not warrant in camera treatment and that his counsel was improperly denied access to these documents. A district court has inherent discretionary power to allow access to in camera submissions where appropriate. Hayden v. National Security Agency/Central Security Service, 608 F.2d at 1381, 1386 (D.C.Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 937, 100 S.Ct. 2156, 64 L.Ed.2d 790 (1980). Normally the denial of such access is completely within the discretion of the court. This is not the usual case, however, because the documents to which access was denied consisted of the major portions of the DEA's Vaughn itemization. 27 In Vaughn, this court noted that the lack of knowledge by the party seeing (sic) disclosure seriously distorts the traditional adversary nature of our legal system's form of dispute resolution. 484 F.2d at 824. We outlined a system of itemizing and indexing that would correlate statements made in the Government's refusal justification with the actual portions of the document. Id. at 827. We noted that under this system, (o)pposing counsel should consult with a view toward eliminating from consideration those portions that are not controverted and narrowing the scope of the Court's inquiry. Id. The procedures outlined were intended not only to assure that the burden of justifying claimed exemptions remained with the agency, but also to ensure that a more adequate adversary testing (would) be produced. Id. at 828; see Ray v. Turner, 587 F.2d 1187, 1192 (D.C.Cir.1978). 28 In prior cases, we have found that submission of in camera affidavits may be appropriate under some circumstances. Allen v. CIA, 636 F.2d 1287, 1298 n.63 (D.C.Cir.1980). The district court, however, should create as complete a public record as possible before following this course. Phillippi v. CIA, 546 F.2d at 1009, 1013 (D.C.Cir. 1976). Because such submissions do not permit the plaintiff an opportunity to respond, these procedures should be employed only where absolutely necessary. Allen v. CIA, 636 F.2d at 1298 n.63. This is particularly true where, as here, the submissions sought to be accorded in camera treatment constitute the heart of the agency's Vaughn index. Allowing a nonpublic Vaughn statement, to which plaintiff has no access, places the plaintiff in the anomalous position of being unable to argue with desirable legal precision for the revelation of the concealed information, Vaughn, 484 F.2d at 823, and eviscerates one of the primary purposes of the indexing requirement. 29 Thus far, this court has countenanced the filing of in camera Vaughn statements only in cases involving the national security and, even then, only when the government's public filings adequately explained why the secrecy concerns were greater than in most FOIA cases. Hayden, 608 F.2d at 1385. We noted that (i)n most other types of cases, a public Vaughn itemization does not compromise secrecy, because the contents of the requested documents are not thereby disclosed, and it is only the substantive content which is allegedly exempt from disclosure. Id. (emphasis in the original). Accordingly, we find that an in camera Vaughn itemization should be permitted only where the district court explicitly finds that the interests of the adversary process are outweighed by the (agency's) legitimate interests in secrecy .... Id. 30 In response to the district court's order to file a Vaughn statement in the case at bar, the DEA filed three affidavits, one public and two in camera. The only justification for the in camera submission consisted of the statement in the public affidavit of John G. Evans that a 'live' (simulated) NADDIS printout example ... is attached as Exhibit A to the (in camera ) Affidavit.... I am of the opinion that this Exhibit contains sensitive investigative material.... 19 Our review of the record indicates that the Evans affidavit is the only public filing made directly in response to the court's order for Vaughn indexing. 20 That document is devoid of any representation that a public Vaughn index would compromise any legitimate secrecy need. See Hayden, 608 F.2d at 1385. Although it may have been appropriate to file some of the exhibits in camera, we are unable to discern from the record any reason that the DEA should have been excused from filing a public Vaughn index, other than the fact that the Agency simply did not want to reveal the nature of the information contained in the NADDIS records. Although we do not believe that all the material submitted was properly accorded in camera treatment, Yeager no longer disputes the exempt status of the information sought. 21 Accordingly, we find nothing to be gained by remanding the case on this issue.