Opinion ID: 1237924
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Vaughn Index

Text: Government agencies must submit an affidavit pursuant to Vaughn, 484 F.2d 820, identifying the documents withheld, the FOIA exemptions claimed, and a particularized explanation of why each document falls within the claimed exemption. Lion Raisins, 354 F.3d at 1082. The Vaughn index must be detailed enough for the district court to make a de novo assessment of the government's claim of exemption. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Lahr makes several challenges to the sufficiency of the government's Vaughn index. We review de novo whether the [agency]'s indices and supporting declarations constitute a sufficient Vaughn index. Citizens Comm'n on Human Rights v. FDA, 45 F.3d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir.1995).
Lahr first contends that the government's Vaughn index fails to identify records correlating various information, such as radar, flight data recorder, and cockpit voice recorder data, with its zoom-climb conclusion. The NTSB's Vaughn index does specifically address records of the correlation of the zoom-climb calculations with these data, referring Lahr to responsive records available in the public docket or released in response to the FOIA requests, or stating that responsive documents were withheld under Exemption 5. Lahr maintains that the government's Vaughn index should identify the records of the correlations it claims to have performed. We cannot discern from this articulation what additional clarification about the available information Lahr seeks; most likely, he is complaining not about the Vaughn index, but about the NTSB's failure to release additional records of this variety. In any event, we conclude that the government's Vaughn index sufficiently identifies correlation records.
Lahr next contends that the government's Vaughn index fails to identify the dates on which the government ran the NSA simulation program and whether it was the CIA or the NSA that actually ran it, arguing that he made a specific request for that information. [25] Specifically, Lahr claims that the CIA produced two printouts of the simulation with allegedly different resultsone a set of graphical charts bearing the date 5/16/97 and the other, data tables bearing two dates, 3/98 and 3/15/04. Lahr faults the government's Vaughn index for failing to state whether both records were generated from the NSA's simulation program. The documents produced and the Vaughn index sufficiently respond to Lahr's request. As to the first document, there is nothing to suggest that the graphical charts were not created on the date specified. According to the government's Vaughn index, an email accompanying the charts identifies the CIA agents involved in creating the document, but their names have been redacted under Exemption 3, a redaction Lahr does not dispute. The government's description plainly states that the graphs are depictions of the results of certain aspects of the trajectory simulation program, and the email so confirms. As to the second, it is true that the document contains two handwritten dates, but the 3/98 date is preceded by dated =, suggesting that the tables report data and results from the simulation run at that time. [26] The document also contains the redacted name of a CIA analyst involved in the simulation, as the Vaughn index indicates. The document explicitly says that the data tables are the product of the trajectory simulation program. Viewed together, the documents and the Vaughn index are sufficient to answer Lahr's challenge.
As a general matter, [a]n affidavit from an agency employee responsible for supervising a FOIA search is all that is needed to satisfy the personal knowledge requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e). Carney v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 814 (2d Cir.1994); see also Maynard, 986 F.2d at 559-60. Lahr argues that, although agency affidavits under FOIA generally may be made based on information available to the affiant in her official capacity, here, because he has proven fraud, the CIA should be required to produce affidavits based only on personal knowledge. Lahr contends that the CIA omitted certain key documents in its submission to the district court and released documents using a confusing numbering system that complicated his efforts at organizing the CIA's responses. Lahr properly points out that an agency's proven misconduct can undermine the presumed veracity of its affidavits. See, e.g., Jones v. FBI, 41 F.3d 238, 243, 249 (6th Cir.1994). He points to no authority, however, that proof of fraud obviates the general rule applicable in FOIA cases that an affiant need not have personally conducted the search. Furthermore, Lahr's complaints about the CIA's handling of his FOIA requests might suggest some bureaucratic mismanagement, but they do not prove fraud in that regard. We hold that the government's Vaughn index was sufficient.