Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

READER'S DIGEST ASSN., INC. v. FBI

October 19, 1981

The READER'S DIGEST ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, William Webster, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, William J. Casey, Director, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Justice, and William French Smith, Attorney General of the United States, Defendants



The opinion of the court was delivered by: WARD

This action arises under the Freedom of Information Act ("the FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Plaintiff is The Reader's Digest Association, Inc. ("Reader's Digest"). The complaint seeks an order compelling defendants to produce certain documents requested by Reader's Digest under the FOIA. Defendants move, pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., for summary judgment. For the reasons hereinafter stated, defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Background

In separate letters dated July 9, 1979, Reader's Digest requested, pursuant to the FOIA, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("the FBI") and the Central Intelligence Agency ("the CIA") produce all documents in their possession relating to Dr. Nicholas George Shadrin ("the Shadrin documents"). Dr. Shadrin defected to the United States from the Soviet Union in 1959 and ultimately became a United States citizen. While in Vienna, Austria, in 1975, Dr. Shadrin disappeared and has not been publicly seen or heard from since.

 Reader's Digest, which sought the requested documents with a view toward publishing a magazine article and later a book on Dr. Shadrin's case, did not receive any of the Shadrin documents from either the CIA or the FBI within the ten-day period set forth by 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). It treated this failure as a denial of its requests by the agencies in question, and accordingly proceeded to appeal the denials to the heads of these agencies. On August 22, 1979, the Department of Justice denied Reader's Digest's appeal of the FBI's refusal. No substantive response to Reader's Digest's appeal of the CIA's refusal was provided within the twenty-day period allowed by 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii), meaning that Reader's Digest was entitled to treat this appeal as having been denied as well.

 Having thereby exhausted its administrative remedies, Reader's Digest commenced this action by filing a complaint in this Court on September 11, 1979, which named as defendants the FBI, the CIA, the directors of those two agencies, the Department of Justice, and the Attorney General of the United States. The complaint alleges that these defendants' refusal to produce any of the Shadrin documents was unlawful under the FOIA. It seeks an order requiring defendants to compile a detailed affidavit itemizing the Shadrin documents and justifying their position that the Shadrin documents are exempt from production under the FOIA. The complaint further seeks an order compelling defendants to produce those of the Shadrin documents that cannot justifiably be withheld under the FOIA.

 In a notice of motion filed on October 30, 1979, defendants moved for an indefinite stay of proceedings in this action to enable them to conduct a full review of the Shadrin documents and determine which, if any, could be produced under the FOIA. This motion was denied on November 8, 1979. The Court thereafter signed an order designed to facilitate defendants' expeditious review of the Shadrin documents.

 The Shadrin documents are quite numerous. Between January 1980 and May 1980, the CIA produced certain of the Shadrin documents precisely as they appear in the files of that agency. However, the remaining Shadrin documents were either withheld entirely by defendants or released only in a redacted form that left many of the documents incomprehensible. The dispute between the parties has thus boiled down to whether any of the Shadrin documents that were redacted must be produced in a less redacted form, and whether any of the Shadrin documents that were withheld entirely must be produced at all, either in their entirety or with some redactions.

 Discussion

 As regards three of the six named defendants, summary judgment must be awarded in their favor for the simple reason that the very terms of the FOIA demonstrate that the FOIA cannot possibly impose any production obligation on them with respect to the Shadrin documents. The FOIA authorizes suits against federal agencies, not against individuals. Gary Energy Corp. v. Department of Energy, 89 F.R.D. 675, 677 (D.Colo.1981); Canadian Javelin, Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 501 F. Supp. 898, 904 (D.D.C.1980); Weberman v. National Security Agency, 490 F. Supp. 9, 10 (S.D.N.Y.), remanded on other grounds mem., 646 F.2d 563 (2d Cir. 1980); Morpurgo v. Board of Higher Education, 423 F. Supp. 704, 714 n.26 (S.D.N.Y.1976). Thus, the three individuals named as defendants are entitled to summary judgment. This leaves only the CIA, the FBI, and the Department of Justice as defendants in this action. Plainly, the question whether the Department of Justice, which is named as a defendant only because of its role in denying Reader's Digest's appeal from the FBI's initial refusal to produce any Shadrin documents, is entitled to summary judgment depends entirely on whether the FBI is entitled to summary judgment. The substantial question with which the Court must deal, then, is whether either the CIA or the FBI is entitled to summary judgment with respect to the documents either withheld or redacted by these two agencies.

 The CIA and the FBI contend that the FOIA does not require any further production of the Shadrin documents. In support of this contention, the CIA and the FBI have submitted several affidavits to the Court. These affidavits describe the Shadrin documents that have been either withheld or redacted and explain these agencies' justification for their position that these documents need not be more fully produced. Some of the affidavits were filed with the Court and made available to Reader's Digest. However, other affidavits were submitted to the Court for in camera review, and have not been filed or made available to Reader's Digest. This procedure was adopted, with Reader's Digest's consent, because the CIA and the FBI took the position that the Shadrin documents in question were so sensitive that public dissemination of not only the documents themselves, but even an affidavit describing them, would endanger the national security of the United States. The instant motion for summary judgment relies on both the public and the in camera affidavits to support these agencies' contention that further disclosure of the Shadrin documents is not required under the FOIA, meaning that Reader's Digest has obtained all the relief to which it is entitled and that the CIA and the FBI are entitled to summary judgment.

 The FOIA's general requirement that each government agency shall make its records available for public inspection does not apply to records that deal with certain matters listed in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). The CIA and the FBI rely on a variety of the "exemptions" set forth in this subsection to justify their refusal to make any further disclosure of the Shadrin documents. The Court's review of these agencies' FOIA exemption claims is guided by several general principles. The FOIA directs the trial court to conduct a de novo review of an agency's nondisclosure decision, and imposes an affirmative burden on the agency to justify that decision. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). Here, the CIA and the FBI place their principal reliance on the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) ("Exemption 1") and 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) ("Exemption 3"). The legislative history of the FOIA makes it plain that Congress intended for a court, when confronted with an Exemption 1 case, to accord substantial weight to an agency's classification decision in making its review. S.Conf.Rep.No.1200, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 12 (1974), reprinted in (1974) U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 6267, 6285, 6290. The courts have consistently followed this admonition in Exemption 1 cases, Halperin v. Central Intelligence Agency, 203 U.S. App. D.C. 110, 629 F.2d 144, 147-48 (D.C.Cir.1980); Goland v. Central Intelligence Agency, 197 U.S. App. D.C. 25, 607 F.2d 339, 352 (D.C.Cir.1978), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 927, 100 S. Ct. 1312, 63 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1980); see, e.g., LaRouche v. Kelley, 522 F. Supp. 425 at 432-433 (S.D.N.Y.1981), and have extended this rule to Exemption 3 cases. See, e.g., Founding Church of Scientology v. National Security Agency, 197 U.S. App. D.C. 305, 610 F.2d 824, 830 n.54 (D.C.Cir.1979); Navasky v. Central Intelligence Agency, 499 F. Supp. 269, 273 (S.D.N.Y.1980). Generally, FOIA exemptions are to be construed narrowly, "in such a way as to provide the maximum access consonant with the overall purpose of the Act." Vaughn v. Rosen, 157 U.S. App. D.C. 340, 484 F.2d 820, 823 (D.C.Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977, 94 S. Ct. 1564, 39 L. Ed. 2d 873 (1974).

 Having these principles in mind, the Court turns to the question at hand, namely, whether the exemptions set forth in the FOIA provide a basis for the defendant agencies' redaction or nondisclosure of the bulk of the Shadrin documents. As noted, the CIA and the FBI have submitted affidavits to the Court in support of their claim that each of the Shadrin documents in question, to the extent it has been withheld, enjoys protection from FOIA production. It is settled law that an agency may satisfy its burden of justifying nondisclosure by submission of such affidavits, as long as the affidavits describe with reasonable specificity the nature of the documents at issue and explain, in a nonconclusory, logical fashion, the justification for their nondisclosure. Lesar v. Department of Justice, 204 U.S. App. D.C. 200, 636 F.2d 472, 481 (D.C.Cir.1980); Vaughn v. Rosen, supra, 484 F.2d at 826-28; accord, Lead Industries Association v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 610 F.2d 70, 88 (2d Cir. 1979). If the affidavits submitted by the agency fail to satisfy this standard, in camera review of the documents themselves is necessary to determine whether the agency's nondisclosure is justified. See, e.g., Lamont v. Department of Justice, 475 F. Supp. 761, 772 (S.D.N.Y.1979). On the other hand, if the affidavits contain information of reasonable detail, sufficient to place the documents within the exemption category, and if the information is not challenged by contrary evidence in the record or evidence of agency bad faith, then summary judgment in favor of the defendant agency is appropriate without an in camera review of the withheld documents. Brown v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 658 F.2d 71 at 74-75 (2d Cir. 1981); Hayden v. National Security Agency, 197 U.S. App. D.C. 224, 608 F.2d 1381, 1386-87 (D.C.Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 937, 100 S. Ct. 2156, 64 L. Ed. 2d 790 (1980).

 Here, as noted, the CIA and the FBI both submitted justificatory affidavits that the Court reviewed in camera. The in camera affidavits, in contrast to other justificatory affidavits that the agencies made public, do not provide a document-by-document justification for the agencies' claim that each of the documents covered by these affidavits is exempt from FOIA disclosure. Instead, each of the in camera affidavits contains a detailed description of the "story" told by the documents reviewed in that affidavit, and then attempts to explain how disclosure of any of the documents covered by the affidavit would threaten to disclose the whole "story," thereby revealing information exempt from FOIA production.

 Reader's Digest contends that the Court may not grant summary judgment on the basis of affidavits that do not contain a document-by-document review of the relevant material. The Court does not endorse Reader's Digest's proposition that, as a matter of law, summary judgment may never be granted in an FOIA case on the basis of agency affidavits that do not review the documents in question individually. However, for the reasons set forth infra, the Court declines in this case to rely on those affidavits ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.