SHAPIRO v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 84 the FBI's Renewed Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper on 8/8/2017. (lccrc2)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO,
Case No. 1:14-CV-00019 (CRC)
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et.
Plaintiff Ryan Shapiro filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the Central
Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Department of Defense’s Defense
Intelligence Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation seeking any document that mentions
or references former South African President Nelson Mandela, and later filed suit to compel
compliance with his requests. Three of the agencies are still in the process of reviewing and
releasing responsive records, but the FBI completed its production and moved to dismiss Shapiro’s
complaint or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The Court ruled on the motion, as well as
Shapiro’s cross-motion for summary judgment, earlier this year. See Shapiro v. Cent. Intelligence
Agency, 2017 WL 1216505, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2017).
The Court rejected most of Shapiro’s numerous objections to the FBI’s withholdings, but
two issues remained unresolved. First, the Court reserved judgment on the FBI’s application of
Exemption 5—which covers pre-decisional documents that are part of the agency’s deliberative
process—to withhold a draft operations plan for a U.S. delegation’s attendance at President
Mandela’s funeral. See id. at *3–4. Accordingly, it ordered the FBI to submit an unredacted
version of that plan for the Court’s in camera review. See March 31, 2017 Order, ECF No. 80.
Second, the Court denied both parties’ motions with respect to the FBI’s determination of what
constitutes a responsive record because “[w]ithout further details in the record about how the FBI
determined which pages within these documents were responsive, the Court [was] unable to resolve
this issue.” Shapiro, 2017 WL 1216505, at *12. The Court invited the FBI to either release the
pages identified by Shapiro as responsive to his request or renew its motion for summary judgment
by filing a supplemental declaration explaining how it made these determinations. See March 31,
2017 Order, ECF No. 80. Upon studying the FBI’s ex parte filing and its supplemental
declarations, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court is convinced that the FBI has
successfully discharged its FOIA obligations and will grant summary judgment in its favor.1
Exemption 5 covers “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums[,]” 5 U.S.C. § 522(b)(5),
that are both “pre-decisional” and “deliberative.” Shapiro, 2017 WL 1216505, at *3 (quoting Tax
Analysts v. IRS, 117 F.3d 607, 616 (D.C. Cir. 1997)). In its earlier ruling, the Court was unable to
determine if a “ten-page draft Operations Plan concerning preparations for sending a U.S.
delegation to South Africa for former President Mandela’s funeral” was properly withheld because
it was unclear if this plan was merely “logistical” or included the type of “conclusions,
recommendations, or opinions” that Exemption 5 was intended to protect. Id. Now, having
reviewed the document for itself, the Court finds it was properly withheld under Exemption 5: The
plan was distributed between agencies; it was a pre-decisional draft that was “recommendatory in
nature” and could not have become final without additional inputs; and it was part of the “give-andtake of the consultative process” that occurs between governmental agencies when preparing for an
In its Memorandum Opinion, the Court also ordered the FBI to release other potentially
responsive information withheld under Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E) or to submit a supplemental
declaration justifying its position. The FBI apparently released pages Mandela 1216-1217 in
response to the Court’s ruling and invoked Exemption 7(D) as an alternative basis for withholding
the remaining information. See Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Renewed Mot. Summ. J. (“Pl.’s Opp’n”) 1
n.1. Shapiro no longer challenges those additional withholdings. See id.
international event with potential security threats. Hooker v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,
887 F. Supp. 2d 40, 56 (D.D.C. 2012), aff'd by 2014 WL 3014213 (D.C. Cir. May 13, 2014). And
while the plan does include some factual material, “[t]he choice of what factual material . . . to
include or remove during the drafting process” appears to have been “part of the [FBI’s]
deliberative process, and thus is properly exempt under Exemption 5.” Id. (citing ViroPharma Inc.
v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 839 F. Supp. 2d 184, 193 (D.D.C. 2012)).
The final loose end concerns Shapiro’s challenges to the FBI’s non-responsiveness
determinations. The crux of Shapiro’s argument was this: once the FBI locates a reference to the
subject of a FOIA inquiry in a document or file—no matter the type of document or its size—the
agency must release the entire document because it constitutes a single responsive record.
Specifically, Shapiro pointed to the FBI’s release of non-consecutive pages within a larger
document, arguing that he was entitled to all pages between those released pages, which he refers to
as “the missing pages.” The FBI disagreed, relying on the agency’s longstanding practice of
locating responsive pages within an off-topic “cross-reference” file and providing additional pages
as needed for context without releasing the document as a whole. The Court found that the “FBI’s
practice is consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s guidance[,]” which permitted agencies to use their own
definitions of a responsive record, subject to certain limitations. Shapiro, 2017 WL 1216505, at
*11. In addition, it set forth a standard, reproduced below, for reviewing such responsiveness
The burden will first rest with the agency to justify its actions when singling out a
responsive record from a greater compilation of documents. If satisfactory, the
agency’s explanation will merit a presumption of good faith. The requester,
however, remains free to challenge the agency’s explanation by offering evidence
of positive indicia that the responsive material was inappropriately withheld or of
bad faith on the part of the agency. The agency will then have an opportunity to
respond to the requester’s allegations, and the Court will review their arguments
on the merits.
Shapiro, 2017 WL 1216505, at *12. The Court requested more information from the FBI about its
responsiveness determinations here because the record lacked the necessary level of detail to permit
effective review of the agency’s actions.
In renewing its motion for summary judgment, the FBI offers two new declarations from
Records Management Division Section Chief David M. Hardy that detail the agency’s
responsiveness determination process. Mr. Hardy explains that the FBI treats main files differently
from cross-references for the purposes of defining a responsive record. Fifth Decl. of David M.
Hardy (“Fifth Hardy Decl.”) ¶ 10. If, for example, the subject of a FOIA request is also “indexed as
a main subject of an investigative file[,]” then all of the pages within the file are considered
responsive and processed accordingly. Id. By contrast, if “Nelson Mandela” (the subject of
Shapiro’s FOIA request) is simply indexed to a cross-reference within another subject’s main file,
then “only the cross-reference [is] reviewed to locate the mention of Nelson Mandela in the
documents, and then only the specific pages he is mentioned on” are considered responsive records.
Id. Each page that mentions Nelson Mandela is considered an independent, responsive record for
the purposes of FOIA. See id. Those pages, along with any additional pages that help provide
context for the specific references, are processed for release. See id. at ¶ 8. The FBI created this
distinction between main files and cross-references because cross-references often contain a high
volume of largely irrelevant information and documents. See id.
Mr. Hardy explains that when the FBI reviewed Shapiro’s request and searched for
responsive records, it located specific mentions of Mandela’s name in cross-references. The FBI
found the specific pages with those references and only processed those pages that “contained
information about the subject of the FOIA request (contextual or concrete).” Id. at ¶ 10. This
resulted in non-consecutive pages being released to Shapiro. In other words, “the missing pages”
Shapiro seeks neither mention Nelson Mandela nor put the relevant pages in context, and therefore
fall outside the scope of his FOIA request. Because the FBI applied its longstanding and reasonable
practice of distinguishing main files and cross-references for responsiveness determinations, the
Court finds that the practice “merit[s] a presumption of good faith.”
Shapiro criticizes the FBI’s practice of using pages—rather than “serials”—as the “basic
unit” for defining a responsive record. See Pl.’s Opp’n 3. Serials are a sub-component of a case
file and can be composed of multiple documents regarding multiple subjects. See Fifth Hardy Decl.
¶¶ 7, 11. Shapiro points to deposition testimony from FBI officials in previous FOIA litigation and
FBI training materials as evidence that a serial is generally thought of as a single document in a file.
Pl.’s Opp’n 3 (citing Exs. A–D). He thus argues that any serial containing references to Mandela
should have been marked responsive and released in its entirety. The FBI responds that the
evidence offered by Shapiro is not fully representative of its recordkeeping practices because the
deponents in the prior cases were discussing specific investigative files not at issue here. See Fifth
Hardy Decl. ¶ 11. Furthermore, the explanations they offer are not at odds with how Mr. Hardy has
explained the FBI’s process: a serial could be a single document, but it also could be many
documents covering different topics. See Fifth Hardy Decl. ¶ 11 (“A serial can be a single
document, but it can also be multiple documents, just as each document may contain numerous
records or pages.”). That is why the FBI concluded that pages and not serials were the most
appropriate unit for defining a record. And it is not Shapiro’s place to dictate how an agency
should manage or define its records as long as its actions are reasonable and supported by the
record. Therefore, Shapiro has failed to offer evidence of bad faith and the Court will uphold the
FBI’s responsiveness determinations here.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the FBI’s motion for summary judgment. A
separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
United States District Judge
Date: August 8, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?