Court Opinion

ID: 9476819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:06:24.61282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:31.652799
License: Public Domain

GARTH, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I disagree with the disposition ordered by the majority which remands this case to the district court for factfinding concerning the number of TABs which contain abstracts.
The majority opinion clearly holds that the mere compilation of titles1 provides an opportunity for the disclosure of classified information and that the Department of Defense’s decision to refuse disclosure was reasonable. Maj. op. pp. 445-446. If the
opinion had stopped at that point, I would have no difficulty in joining the opinion and its holding.
However, despite reaching this conclusion, the majority then goes on to require a remand so that the district court may reconcile or determine the percentage of TABs containing abstracts because the parties’ expert witnesses differed with respect to this fact. I cannot fathom why or how this information can bear on the decision in this case which rests on a compilation theory.
Once we have decided that the mere compilation of titles without more may reveal sensitive information, the issue has been concluded. Indeed, the majority opinion states as much: “In light of the deference to which DoD is entitled, we may be obliged to respect its judgment about the danger of disclosure even if most of the TABs do not contain abstracts.” Maj. op. at 447. Thus, whether or not the titles are accompanied by abstracts, is not only irrelevant, but in light of the majority’s remand, it calls for factfinding in a summary judgment context that is clearly inappropriate.
Because I am satisfied with the majority’s compilation theory analysis and its reasons for deferring to the Department of Defense’s judgment, I would affirm the order of the district court which granted summary judgment in favor of the Department of Defense.

. As the majority correctly points out, the compilation theory “ — that information harmless in itself might be harmful when disclosed in context” i.e., when compiled — was held to be a proper basis for withholding in Halperin v. National Security Council, 452 F.Supp. 47 (D.D.C. 1978) (maj. op. p. 444 n. 1).