Opinion ID: 599116
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the exemptions

Text: 8 Under the FOIA, the burden is on the agency to sustain its action. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). The Department submitted affidavits from Ralph E. Lindstrom, Director of the Department's Office of Mandatory Review in the Classification and Declassification Center, 2 Sharon B. Kotok, Acting Chief of the Department's Information Access and Service Division of the Foreign Affairs Information Management Center (FAIM/IS), and Frank M. Machak, Chief of FAIM/IS, to support its decision to withhold certain documents and to defend the adequacy of its search.
9 Of the ten documents withheld in full or in part, the Department asserts that exemption 1 covers seven of them. 3 Under exemption 1, documents may be withheld if they are (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1). While the burden of proof is on the agency, a reviewing court  'must recognize that the Executive departments responsible for national defense and foreign policy matters have unique insights into what adverse affects [sic] might occur as a result of public disclosures of a particular classified record.'  Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C.Cir.1981) (quoting S.Rep. No. 93-1200, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 12 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6267, 6290). Judges, moreover, lack the expertise necessary to second-guess such agency opinions in the typical national security FOIA case. Halperin v. CIA, 629 F.2d 144, 148 (D.C.Cir.1980). Accordingly, we  'accord substantial weight to an agency's affidavit concerning the details of the classified status of the disputed record.'  Military Audit Project, 656 F.2d at 738 (quoting S.Rep. No. 93-1200, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 12 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6267, 6290) (emphasis in Military Audit Project ). 10 The Department claims that the seven documents fall under exemption 1 because [299 U.S.App.D.C. 335] they contain information about foreign governments that was communicated to our government by the foreign governments on a confidential basis, that would reveal United States intelligence sources and methods and that contains frank internal discussions of foreign relations matters. Lindstrom Aff. I at 6-9. For example, document 96 is a telegram reporting a conversation between an assistant secretary of state and a high-ranking foreign diplomat regarding Armenian terrorism. Release of the document would, in the Department's judgment, jeopardize reciprocal confidentiality and damage national security. Lindstrom Aff. II at 17-18. 4 11 As another example, the Department withheld document 87, which was classified pursuant to section 1.3(a)(5) of Executive Order 12,356 because it relates to foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States. 5 Document 87 is a telegram from the American Embassy in Paris to the Department reporting interviews with the Turkish Ambassador to France and a leader of the Armenian National Movement. The interviews were conducted by and originally published in a Paris newspaper. The Department released the published material but it withheld one paragraph of United States Embassy comment on a sensitive issue that would be easily misinterpreted and could cause harmful repercussions in U.S. relations. Lindstrom Aff. II at 10. 12 The district court found the Department's summaries of the seven documents adequately specific to satisfy its burden of proof. Mem. Op. at 7; see Halperin, 629 F.2d at 148 (affidavits need to be reasonably specific). The court concluded that, were the Department required to be more specific, it would be forced to breach its promises of confidentiality. Mem. Op. at 7. Having also reviewed the descriptions of the other documents included in Lindstrom's affidavits (relating to documents 79, 93, 94, 103 and 104), we agree with the district court that the seven documents contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure under exemption 1.
13 The Department invokes exemption 3 to justify withholding document 11. Exemption 3 permits agencies to withhold documents if they are specifically exempted from disclosure by statute, provided the statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3). The Department asserts that document 11 is not disclosable under the National Security Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq., which makes the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency responsible for protecting intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure. 50 U.S.C. § 403(d)(3). It is well settled that section 403(d)(3) falls within exemption 3. Gardels v. CIA, 689 F.2d 1100, 1103 (D.C.Cir.1982); Halperin, 629 F.2d at 147. 14 Under section 403(d)(3), a document is exempt if the Agency demonstrates that an answer to the query 'can reasonably be expected to lead to unauthorized disclosure of intelligence sources and methods.'  Gardels, 689 F.2d at 1103 (quoting Halperin, 629 F.2d at 147). In reviewing an exemption 3 claim, we do not closely scrutinize the contents of a withheld document; instead, we determine only whether there is a relevant statute and whether the document falls within that statute. Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339, 350 (D.C.Cir.1978), PCITE, 299 U.S.App.D.C. 336>>1978), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 927, 100 S.Ct. 1312, 63 L.Ed.2d 759 (1980). 15 Document 11 appears to be an earlier, thirty-page version of the Article. The Department states that portions 6 of document 11 are classified as secret and confidential because they contain highly sensitive foreign government information, information concerning intelligence sources and methods, and information concerning foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, the release of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security. Lindstrom Aff. I at 16. We agree that document 11 falls within section 403(d)(3) of the National Security Act and the district court correctly held that exemption 3 protects against its disclosure.
16 Exemption 5 permits an agency to withhold inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). The purpose of exemption 5 is to protect the quality of agency decisions. NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150, 95 S.Ct. 1504, 1516, 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975). The exemption protects pre-decisional, not post-decisional, documents because only the former can have an effect on the decisionmaking process. Id. at 151, 95 S.Ct. at 1516. 17 Documents 97 and 102 fall within exemption 5 because they are pre-decisional, deliberative documents that in part discuss how the Department should respond to the reaction of some members of the public to the Article and the Note. Document 97 includes two draft letters proposing two options for replies to public inquiries about the Article and the Note. Lindstrom Aff. II at 20. Neither option was ultimately used by the Department but the letters reflect advisory opinions that are important to the deliberative process. See Russell v. Department of Air Force, 682 F.2d 1045, 1048-49 (D.C.Cir.1982) (withholding documents to prevent public from misconstruing officer's views as agency views); Fisher v. United States Dep't of Justice, 772 F.Supp. 7, 10-11 (D.D.C.1991) (withholding documents to prevent public confusion that might be caused by disclosure of reasons and rationales that were not ultimately the grounds for the agency's action), aff'd, 968 F.2d 92 (D.C.Cir.1992). Document 102 is an informal, undated note containing comments made by one Department officer to another about a third officer's memorandum on the Armenian genocide. Lindstrom Aff. II at 21. The document reflects part of the deliberative process used to address the genocide issue. Accordingly, the district court correctly held both documents exempt from disclosure.