Defendant's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment, And Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

By Scott, Mcgregor W.

Book Id: WPLBN0000696960
Format Type: PDF eBook:
File Size: 0.3 MB
Reproduction Date: 2005

Title:	Defendant's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment, And Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
Author:	Scott, Mcgregor W.
Volume:
Language:	English
Subject:	Government Reference Publication, Transportation., Transportation Administrative Service Center (U.S.)
Collections:	Government Library Collection, National Security Archive Collection
Historic Publication Date:
Publisher:	Transportation Security Administration


Citation APA MLA Chicago W. Scot, B. M. (n.d.). Defendant's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment, And Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Retrieved from http://gutenberg.us/

Excerpt
Plaintiff opposes Defendant Central Intelligence Agency?s (?CIA?) withholding of two President?s Daily Briefs (?Requested PDBs?) under Freedom of Information Act (?FOIA?), 5 U.S.C. 552, Exemptions 1 and 3 by arguing that (i) prior releases of PDBs and other intelligence information, and the age of the Requested PDBs, undercut the CIA?s claim to those exemptions, and (ii) Information Review Officer for the Directorate of Intelligence Terry N. Buroker?s Declaration is deficient because it lacks the requisite level of specificity. Contrary to those arguments, Mr. Buroker?s Declaration is as specific and detailed as is required under FOIA caselaw and provides as much detail about classified information as possible in a public document, including in its accounting for prior disclosures of PDB editions and for the passage of time since the Requested PDBs were prepared. Moreover, it is well-established that the CIA?s prior release of intelligence does not waive its ability to withhold similar intelligence. E.g., CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159, 180, 105 S. Ct. 1881, 1893 (1985). It is likewise clear that the age of classified information does not itself undermine the need for it to remain classified. E.g., Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755, 763 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Plaintiff?s arguments that Mr. Buroker?s explanation of the CIA?s withholding determination is not entitled to the great deference ordinarily afforded the CIA with respect to national-security information cannot be reconciled with the controlling Supreme Court precedent of Sims, and the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent of Minier v. CIA, 88 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 1996), and Hunt v. CIA, 981 F.2d 1116 (9th Cir. 1992). Regarding FOIA Exemption 5, Plaintiff is incorrect that the CIA may not rely on the presidential communications privilege in the absence of an invocation by the President and because of the age of the PDBs. A District Court for the District of Columbia recently rejected the same arguments in its comprehensive opinion in Lardner v. Dep?t of Justice, No. 03-0180, 2005 WL 758267 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2005). Contrary to Plaintiff?s arguments regarding the deliberative process privilege, the Supreme Court has recognized that documents, like the PDB, that an agency prepares for the President?s use in Executive decision making, are covered by that privilege. EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 93 S. Ct. 827 (1973).

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 I. The CIA Has Demonstrated Entitlement to Exemption 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. The CIA?s Declaration Is Sufficiently Specific and Detailed for the Court to Review the CIA?s Withholding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 B. Previous CIA Disclosures of the PDB and Other Intelligence Documents Do Not Require Court-Ordered Disclosure of the Requested PDBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 C. The Age of the Requested PDBs Does Not Require Their Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 D. Plaintiff?s Arguments Fail in Light of the Great Deference to Which the CIA is Entitled for an Exemption 3 Withholding . . . . . . . . . . 12 II. CIA Information Review Officer Buroker Explains in Sufficient Detail the Harm Posed by Release of the Requested PDBs and Establishes Entitlement to Exemption 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 III. The Requested PDBs Are Covered By Exemption 5 Based on the Presidential Communications and Deliberative Process Privileges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A. Presidential Communications Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1. Presidential Invocation Is Not a Prerequisite to Exemption 5 Based on the Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2. The Age of the Requested PDBs Does Not Preclude Application of the Privilege Under FOIA Exemption 5 . . . . . . . . . . 19 B. Deliberative Process Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 IV. The CIA?s Declaration Explains in Sufficient Detail Why the Requested PDBs Cannot Be Redacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 V. Plaintiff?s Objections to CIA Information Review Officer Buroker?s Declaration Should Be Overruled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26