Osen LLC v. Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of Treasury

Background

Osen LLC submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for memoranda and exhibits supporting the Treasury Department’s sanctions designations of Sanabil Association for Relief and Development, Al-Salah Society, and Al-Waqfiya Al-Ri’aya Al-Usra Al-Filistinya Wa Al-Lubnanya. Osen said it sought the records as evidence for separate lawsuits against banks under the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.

OFAC located approximately 678 pages. It released 90 pages in full and 90 pages in part, while withholding most of the remaining records. The withholdings and redactions relied on several FOIA exemptions, including Exemption 1 for properly classified information that could harm national security and Exemption 3 for information that another statute prohibits the agency from disclosing. Osen did not dispute the adequacy of OFAC’s searches but continued to challenge various withholdings and redactions.

Osen’s Arguments

Osen argued that OFAC’s Vaughn Index—a list describing withheld or redacted records and the exemptions claimed—did not provide enough information to permit an effective challenge. Osen also argued that OFAC withheld information that Treasury had previously disclosed in press releases. In addition, Osen contended that the three designated entities did not pose a significant enough national-security threat to justify withholding the requested information, including because Sanabil had allegedly been closed for nearly 20 years.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed OFAC’s public filings, classified brief, and classified agency affidavits. It concluded that the affidavits described the claimed exemptions with reasonably specific detail and showed that the withheld information logically fell within them. The court found that disclosure could reveal intelligence coverage, collection capabilities, sources, techniques, and methods, and could allow adversaries to avoid detection or undermine intelligence efforts. The court also found no evidence of agency bad faith and deferred to the executive branch’s reasonable and plausible national-security assessments.

For Exemption 3, the court concluded that the withheld information about intelligence sources and methods fell within the National Security Act, 50 U.S.C. § 3024(i)(1), and that other withheld information concerning the Defense Intelligence Agency fell within 10 U.S.C. § 424. The court further found that OFAC had disclosed all reasonably segregable information—that is, all nonexempt material that could be separated from exempt material without compromising protected information.

The court rejected Osen’s official-disclosure argument. Applying the Second Circuit’s strict test, it found that the withheld information was more specific than, and in some instances different from, the information in Treasury’s press releases. The court also noted that information may be publicly available in one context while remaining properly classified in another.

Disposition

The court granted OFAC’s motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court was requested to terminate the motion at docket entry 56 and close the case.