Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Central Intelligence…

Nature of the Document

The provided text is a joint letter from the parties’ counsel, not a judicial opinion or order. It reports on the status of a Freedom of Information Act case and proposes scheduling arrangements. It does not state that the court granted, denied, or otherwise ruled on the parties’ requests.

Background and Requests

The parties informed Judge Colleen McMahon that the agencies were continuing to search for and process potentially responsive records. They said the case would likely be resolved through cross-motions for summary judgment based on legal arguments and declarations, without discovery. They therefore asked to be relieved of the obligation to submit proposed discovery dates and requested that the scheduled initial conference be adjourned without a new date. They proposed filing a further status report by July 11, 2022.

Agency Status Updates

The National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and Drug Enforcement Administration each issued a complete “Glomar” response. That response asserts that even confirming or denying whether an agency possesses responsive records would itself disclose information protected from release. The plaintiff reserved the right to challenge those responses later, and the parties agreed that any such litigation would be more efficient after the other agencies completed processing.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation had completed its search and was processing approximately 1,500 potentially responsive pages. It agreed to complete processing by August 31, 2022, and to make a simultaneous release of certain records if it released them to the New York Times in a separate case and those records were also responsive here.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel completed its searches without locating potentially responsive records. The National Security Division located approximately 95 potentially responsive pages and planned to process them, while coordinating with other agencies or components, for a possible single release of responsive, non-exempt portions by August 31, 2022. The Criminal Division had completed initial searches but needed to search the files of identified custodians. The Office of Information Policy had completed initial searches and was reviewing a significant volume of potentially responsive items.

Army and Proposed Next Steps

The parties determined that the Army was not the correct recipient of the request. After discussing the request with the apparently correct recipient, U.S. Africa Command, and learning that a recent search for a similar request found no responsive records, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the Army voluntarily and said it would not submit a duplicative request to that command.

The parties proposed that the July 11 status report address the Criminal Division’s searches, the Office of Information Policy’s responsiveness review, and possible next steps for those components.

Disposition

No disposition appears in the provided text. The letter contains requests and proposed agreements, but it does not show an order by Judge Colleen McMahon granting or denying them.