Eslaminia, et al v. FBI, et al

Filing 94

MEMORANDUM and ORDER. Signed by Judge Marilyn H. Patel on 10/28/2011. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

No. C 99-03249 MHP
REZA ESLAMINIA, et al.,
Plaintiff(s),

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

vs.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendant(s).
/

15
16

As explained in an earlier order of this court, the remaining claims in this action are

17

plaintiff’s claims for disclosure of records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”),

18

5 U.S.C. § 552. See Mem.& Order filed March 23, 2000, Doc. No.43. The records sought are

19

miscellaneous papers of the plaintiff’s deceased father, Hedayat Eslaminia. The records were

20

recovered from the father’s residence during an investigation of the his disappearance. Ultimately

21

they were turned over to the F.B.I. which retained them. Earlier orders have set forth the

22

background of this action and are not repeated here. Plaintiff has clearly identified the records it

23

seeks in this action. There is no question as to whether the government has conducted an adequate

24

search for the records sought. In fact, the government acknowledges it possesses the documents.

25

However, the F.B.I asserts that the documents are exempt from disclosure under (b)(1) of section

26

552 and the question is whether this exemption, known as Exemption 1, is justified.

27
28

In prior orders this court requested further declarations from defendants explicating the basis
for the exemption, setting forth the extent to which these documents are already in the public

1

domain, stating whether there is a basis for continued classification given the age of the documents,

2

and responding to other questions posed in the orders. See Order filed Sept. 20, 2002, Doc. No.51

3

and Order filed Aug. 26, 2011, Doc. No.89. The court also ordered submission of the designated

4

documents for in camera review. See Mem.& Order filed March 23, 2000 at 9 and Order filed Sept.

5

20, 2002 at 2 et seq.

6

The government has responded with declarations filed under seal and in camera on February

7

17, 2000, November 24, 2009, March 30, 2011 and October 3, 2011, the last of these dates including

8

a resubmission of the earlier declarations. The court has conducted an in camera review of the

9

declarations and the documents. As set forth in earlier orders those documents consist of: 1

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

1. Roteck notebook

11

2. Penway composition book

12

3. Business size envelope

13

4. Notes on Marriott Hotel Stationery

14

5. Notes on Capitol Hilton Stationery

15

6. 47 Handwritten pages.

16

A few lines from one of the documents have been disclosed. Otherwise the government

17

continues to assert exemption (b)(1) as to all of the documents based upon national security,

18

intelligence activities, sources and methods of intelligence gathering and foreign relations or

19

activities, including confidential sources. Defendants have also certified that the classifications

20

comply with the procedural requirements of Executive Order 12958.2

21
22
23

EXEMPTION 1 CLAIM
Over thirty years ago the Supreme Court said it is “crystal clear” that Congress enacted the

24

Freedom of Information Act “to pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action

25

to the light of public scrutiny.” Department of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976).

26

Congress provided for nine exemptions and explicitly set them forth in section 552(b). Nonetheless,

27

the touchstone of the Act is disclosure and, thus, the Supreme Court has held that there is a strong

28

2

1

presumption in favor of disclosure, placing the burden on the governmental agency to justify the

2

withholding of requested documents. Department of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of

3

Press, 489 U.S. 749, 755 (1988).

4

Under the Act an agency is permitted to withhold “matters ...(A) specifically authorized
under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense

6

or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.” 5 U.S.C.

7

§ 552(b)(1). This exemption is referred to as Exemption 1. In this action the agency, the FBI, relies

8

on Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12,958, 60 Fed.Reg. 19825 (Apr. 17, 1995), as the basis for the proper

9

classification of the documents. Pertinent to this discussion E.O. 12,958 sets forth the various

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

categories of classification, the classification standards to be followed, the classification levels,

11

persons that may exercise classification authority, the duration of classification and other specifics

12

related to classification, implementing section 552(b)(1).

13

In the case at bar declarations have been submitted in camera and under seal asserting that

14

the records sought are covered by Exemption 1 and sections 1.5 (c) and (d) of E.O. 12,958. Section

15

1.5 enumerates several categories of material that are deemed classified. Subsection (c) provides for

16

“intelligence activities (including special activities), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology.”

17

Subsection (d) provides for matters related to “foreign relations or foreign activities of the United

18

States, including confidential sources.” While conclusory declarations generally will not suffice to

19

support an Agency’s claim of exemption, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that “the text of

20

Exemption 1 itself suggests that little proof or explanation is required beyond a plausible assertion

21

that information is properly classified....[T]he court must accord [substantial weight] to an agency’s

22

affidavit concerning the details of the classified status of the disputed record.” Morley v. C.I.A., 508

23

F.3d 1108, 1124 (D.C.Cir.2007)(emphasis included).

24

Nonetheless, the agency must establish that it complied with proper procedures in classifying

25

documents and that the withheld documents fall within the scope of the designated provisions of

26

E.O. 12,958. The declarations are sufficient if they “describe the documents and the justifications

27

for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail, demonstrate that the information withheld

28

3

1

logically falls within the claimed exemption, and are not controverted by either contrary evidence in

2

the record nor by evidence of agency bad faith.” Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738

3

(D.C.Cir.1981) There must be sufficient detail to “‘forge the logical connection between

4

information [withheld] and the claimed exemption.’” Physicians for Human Rights v. U.S. Dep’t of

5

Defense, 675 F.Supp.2d 149, 167 (D.D.C.2009)(quoting Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t. Of Army, 79 F.3d

6

1172, 1178 (D.C.Cir.1996)). The court in Military Audit noted that national security agencies “have

7

unique insights into what adverse [effect] might occur as a result of public disclosures” and, thus,

8

courts are “required to accord substantial weight to an agency’s affidavit concerning the details of

9

the classified status” of the withheld documents. Military Audit, 656 F.2d at 738.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Here, the court has had the benefit of detailed declarations and the documents themselves.

11

The court has reviewed the designated documents in camera and considered them in light of the

12

government’s declarations that also have been submitted in camera and in light of existing case law.

13

The court is permitted to review classified affidavits ex parte and in camera where national security

14

is involved. See Lykins v. United States, 725 F.2d 1455 (D.C. Cir.1984); Edmonds v. F.B.I., 272

15

F.Supp.2d 35, 46 n.4 (D.D.C. 2003). The court finds that the declarations filed in this case are

16

sufficient to meet the standards set forth above and that the documents comport with the

17

declarations’ description. They “forge the logical connection” between the information contained in

18

the documents and Exemption 1. The declarations taken together provide adequate justification for

19

their in camera submission and for the assertion of the (b)(1) exemption. The documents themselves

20

provide ample further support for the claimed exemption.

21

In its August 26 order, Doc. No. 89, the court queried the government as to whether the

22

documents are or are about to be automatically declassified or should be declassified under the new

23

Executive Order 13,526. A further declaration was submitted in camera addressing the issue and

24

the court has reviewed it. The court is satisfied that the agency has sufficiently explained the reason

25

for continued classification and thus applies the earlier declarations taken together with the most

26

recent declarations submitted on September 15, 2011, and October 3, 2011, Doc. Nos. 90 and 92,

27

respectively, in determining the merits of the Exemption 1 claim.

28

4

1

The court has determined that even at this late date there is much in these documents that
discloses intelligence sources and methods that still pertain to national security and justify continued

3

classification and exemption under (b)(1). Most of the pages are replete with names of persons still

4

living and whose lives could be jeopardized by disclosure of their contacts with the author of the

5

document, Hedayat Eslaminia and others. Other persons named in the documents are deceased,

6

some of them executed by the current or other post-Shah Iranian governments. Whether living or

7

deceased these individuals have family and relatives remaining in Iran who could be victims of

8

incarceration, torture or execution. The declarations point out specific instances of such

9

consequences. The declarations of the government and the documents provide ample support for the

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

2

conclusions this court reaches. Even current news reports from Iran tend to indicate the accuracy of

11

these assertions, although, of course, those reports do not constitute admissible evidence and the

12

court does not rely upon them.

13
14
15

SEGREGABILITY
The court also reviewed the designated documents to determine whether any portions of the

16

documents could be segregated without disclosing legitimately classified or exempted material.

17

Where portions of the classified documents can be segregated and some portions disclosed without

18

jeopardizing the national security concerns justified by the government, the court may sua sponte

19

order such segregable portions disclosed. See Trans-Pacific Policing Agreement v. U.S. Customs

20

Serv., 177 F.3d 1022, 1027-28 (D.C.Cir.1999); 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (“[a]ny reasonably segregable

21

portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the

22

portions which are exempt....”)

23

In accordance with this guidance, the court determines that excerpts from the following

24

documents may be disclosed without adversely affecting the national security concerns established

25

by the defendant F.B.I., while the remainder of the documents may be withheld.

26
27
28

The court finds that defendants are entitled to withhold all matters contained in Document 1, 3
and 5 under Exemption 1.
5

1

The court finds that defendants are entitled to withhold all the matters contained in Documents

2

2, 4 and 6 except the following excerpts which the court finds are reasonably segregable and shall be

3

disclosed observing the following exceptions or limitations. All names and identifying information

4

shall be redacted from the following disclosures except the names of Khomeyni and Saddam.

5

Where the sentence or statement identifies the speaker, including in the first person, such identity

6

shall be redacted. In all other respects the following portions of the documents shall be disclosed:

7

Document 2, No. 447

8

p.6, line 7 to page 7 line 3 commencing :[omit name] “explained that we have come

9

to realize ....” and ending with “...will lead the prayer services.”

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

p. 7, 2d full ¶ 2d sent. to p. 7, before last complete sentence, commencing: [Omit

11

name] “said that as far as....” and ending with “...where they have come from.”

12

p. 20, last ¶ to p. 21 end of continuing ¶: commencing with: [Omit speaker] “The

13

sources of emulation...” and ending with “...arms of the sources of emulation.”

14

p. 23, last ¶ commencing with” [Omit speaker] “Gentlemen....” continuing to last line

15

“...other problems.”

16

p. 24, continuing ¶, first full sentence, commencing with: “Because you have not

17

tried...”.ending with 3rd to last sentence in same paragraph “...you are a loser.”

18
19

Document 2, No. 448

20

p. 10, first ¶, 3rd full sentence to end of ¶, commencing with: [Omit name] “goes

21

around collecting ....” ending with “ ...financial assistance”.

22

p. 10, last ¶, last sentence to p. 11 end of penultimate ¶, commencing with: [Omit

23

speaker] “all the clergy and people....” ending with “disguise of clergy.” [Omit

24

pronoun which identifies speaker.]

25
26
27
28

Document. 4, No. 446
p. 4, Last ¶, line 11 to end of paragraph ending at top of p. 5, commencing with: “you
6

1

have to bear in mind...” ending with “about this situation.” [Omit from next to last

2

full sentence on p. 4 “through...and others,”, thus, omitting name.]

3
4
5

Document 6, No. 220

6

p.2, first ¶, line 1, commencing with: “Today you can see....” ending with

7

“put the people to sleep.”

8

p. 25, first ¶, line 3 to No. 221, p.1, beginning line 9, commencing with:

9

“As long as there is war....” and ending with “authority in Iran?”

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Document 6, No. 221

12

p. 15, first ¶, first line to 4th line, commencing with: “How stupid are these ....” and

13

ending with “who ran a country and a government.”

14
15
16

PUBLICLY DISCLOSED MATERIAL
Plaintiff has filed a supplemental memorandum, declaration and exhibits to show that the

17

classified information has already been disclosed in other documents retrieved from Hedayat

18

Eslaminia’s home and not seized by law enforcement. He has provided a translated copy of the

19

documents which were written in Farsi. These documents post-date the classified documents in this

20

case and contain material different from that contained in the classified documents. Plaintiff argues

21

that since this information is publicly available it may not be withheld from disclosure because it is a

22

“common sense rule; there is no need to keep information private that is otherwise known.” Supp.

23

Brief., Doc. 73, at p.5. Plaintiff cites no authority for this “common sense rule”. Furthermore, the

24

argument is specious for the following reasons. The information contained in the classified

25

documents is significantly different and more substantial than the information available in Exhibit B

26

to plaintiff’s submitted declaration. This Exhibit is a translation of notes purporting to be written by

27

Hedayat Eslaminia in Farsi. They cover the dates of July 19, 1984 through July 26, 1984. The court

28

7

1

cannot determine whether this Exhibit includes all of Hedayat Eslaminia’s notes for this period of

2

time. However, none of the notes that are part of the classified documents cover any of the period

3

contained in Exhibit B. The classified documents contain many more names and other identifying

4

information, cover a wider range of activities and time periods and are significantly more in depth.

5

None of this information is publicly available and it is distinctly different from the contents of

6

Exhibit B.

7

The prevailing case law holds that “we must be confident that the information sought is truly
public and that the requester receive no more than what is publicly available before we find a

9

waiver.” Cottone v. Reno, 193 F.3d 550, 555 (D.C.Cir.1999)(cited approvingly in Students against

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

Genocide v. Department of State, 257 F.3d 828, 836 (D.C.Cir.2001)). This court assumes Exhibit B

11

is in the public domain - - it is not classified, it is in the possession of the plaintiff and it has been

12

made a part of the public record in this case. It is distinct and separate from the documents that have

13

been classified. Its acquisition, however obtained, was not obtained from the defendants and it does

14

not affect the legitimacy of the classification of the documents withheld.

15

In accordance with the foregoing, the court grants summary judgment in favor of the

16

defendants and denies plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to Documents 1, 3 and 5 in their

17

entirety and as to Documents 2, 4 and 6, except as to those excerpts the court has designated above.

18

The court denies defendants’ motion for summary judgment and grants plaintiff’s motion for

19

summary judgment solely as to the above designated excerpts and orders them disclosed to plaintiff

20

within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25
26

Date: October 28, 2011
MARILYN HALL PATEL
United States District Court Judge

27
28

8

1
2
3

ENDNOTES

4

1. Where the withheld documents are referred to in this order this numerical designation is used, e.g.
Document 1 refers to the Roteck notebook, Document 2 refers to the Penway composition book, etc.

5
6
7
8

2. Executive Order No.12,298 was adopted effective April 17, 1995, 60 Fed. Reg.19825. It was
amended by Executive Order No. 13,292. 68 Fed. Reg.15,315 (March 28, 2003). The latter was revoked
and replaced by Executive Order No.13,526, 2009 WL 5178737 (Dec.29, 2009). An exemption under
5 U.S.C. section 552(b) is determined in accordance with the Executive Order in effect at the time of
the classification decision. The above-enumerated documents for which Exemption 1 is asserted are,
thus, subject to E.O.12,928. However, the result would not be different under E.O.13,526.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9