United States District Court, District of Columbia
FILMPRODUKTIONEN GMBH, Plaintiff, represented by Kelly Brian
McClanahan, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendant, represented by
Heather D. Graham-Oliver, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
A. HOWELL, District Judge.
plaintiff, LOOKS Filmproduktionen GMBH ("LOOKS"), a
German documentary film production and distribution company,
brings this case against the Central Intelligence Agency
("CIA"), asserting two claims: (1) that the CIA
unlawfully denied the plaintiff the requested records under
the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. Â§
552; and (2) that the CIA wrongfully aggregated the
plaintiff's two FOIA requests, in violation of the FOIA
and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5
U.S.C. Â§Â§ 701 et seq. First Am. Compl.
("FAC") Â¶Â¶ 3, 30, 41, ECF No. 25. Pending before
the Court are the CIA's motions for summary judgment on
the first claim and to dismiss the second claim, Def.'s
Mot. Summ. J. ("Def.'s SJ Mot."), ECF No. 16;
Def.'s Supp. Mot. Dismiss Pl.'s APA Claim
("Def.'s Mot. Dismiss"), ECF No. 27, and the
plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on
part of the first claim and the second claim in its entirety,
Pl.'s Cross-Mot. for Partial Summ. J. ("Pl.'s
Mot."), ECF No. 31. For the reasons set out below, the
CIA's motion for summary judgment is granted, the
CIA's motion to dismiss the second claim is denied as
moot, and the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial
summary judgment is denied as moot.
LOOKS alleges that it is
currently making a documentary film about Erich Mielke, the
former head of the Ministry for State Security, also known as
the "Stasi, " of the erstwhile German Democratic
Republic, colloquially known as East Germany. FAC Â¶Â¶ 5, 6, 8.
On October 11, 2012, LOOKS submitted a FOIA request to the
CIA seeking "all records regarding Erich [Fritz Emil]
Mielke, Minister of State Security in the German Democratic
Republic (GDR)." Def.'s St. Mat. Facts as to Which
There Is No Genuine Issue ("Def.'s SMF") Â¶ 1
(alteration in original), ECF No. 16-1; Pl.'s Resp. to
Def.'s SMF ("Pl.'s SMF Resp.") Â¶ 1, ECF No.
30; Pl.'s St. Mat. Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine
Issue ("Pl.'s SMF") Â¶ 2, ECF No. 31. On October
31, 2012, the CIA's Information and Privacy Coordinator
told the plaintiff, in a letter, stating that after
"conduct[ing] a search of its previously released
documents database for any responsive records, " two
responsive documents were located and provided to the
plaintiff. Def's SMF Â¶ 2; Pl.'s SMF Resp. Â¶ 2;
Pl.'s SMF Â¶ 3. The letter further stated that the CIA
"could neither confirm nor deny the existence or
nonexistence of any other responsive records, " and
denied the "request... pursuant to FOIA Exemptions
(b)(1) and (b)(3)." Def.'s SMF Â¶ 2; Pl.'s SMF
Resp. Â¶ 2. In other words, the CIA issued a Glomar
December 21, 2012, the plaintiff appealed the CIA's
denial of its request and use of a Glomar response,
Def.'s SMF Â¶ 3; Pl.'s SMF Resp. Â¶ 3; Pl.'s SMF Â¶
4, which appeal was denied by the CIA's Agency Release
Panel ("ARP") on March 27, 2013, Def.'s SMF Â¶
4; Pl.'s SMF Resp. Â¶ 4; Pl.'s SMF Â¶ 5. Dissatisfied
with this result, the plaintiff sought assistance from the
Office of Government Information Services ("OGIS"),
a "FOIA ombudsman" charged with the task of
resolving disputes between FOIA requesters and the
government. On December 17, 2013, the OGIS advised the
plaintiff that because the CIA does not process
reconsideration requests, the plaintiff should "submit a
new request, [referencing its] previous request, " and
"refine this request to focus around a specific
historical event, without referring to a specific
individual." Def.'s SJ Mot., Ex. E to Decl. Martha
M. Lutz (Letter from OGIS to Plaintiff, dated Dec. 17, 2013)
at 5, ECF No. 16-4; Def.'s SMF Â¶ 5; Pl.'s Resp. SMF Â¶
February 24, 2014, the plaintiff submitted two new FOIA
requests ("2014 FOIA Requests") to the CIA: (1)
"for copies of all records about former East German
minister of State Security Erich Mielke maintained or created
by the Medical and Psychological Analysis Center
("MPAC") or its predecessor Office of Leadership
Analysis ("OLA"), " Def.'s SJ Mot., Ex. F
to Decl. Martha M. Lutz ("2014 FOIA Requests") at
6, ECF No. 16-4; and (2) "for copies of all records
about former East German Minister of State Security Erich
Mielke, " excluding "any records maintained or
created by the [MPAC] or its predecessor [OLA], " and
noting that the request is a "resubmission-with some
minor modifications-" of a previous FOIA request, and
that the plaintiff expects this new request to be
"treat[ed]... as a reconsideration and not as a
new request, " id. at 9. See also
Def.'s SMF Â¶ 6; Pl.'s SMF Resp. Â¶ 6; Pl.'s SMF Â¶Â¶
7, 8. The plaintiff expressly instructed the CIA "
not  [to] combine these [two] requests, as they
have been filed separately to allow [the CIA] to process and
release records in response to the narrower request... while
still processing the records responsive to the broader
request." 2014 FOIA Requests at 6 n.1.
the plaintiff's instructions, on March 14, 2014, the CIA
combined the 2014 FOIA requests and issued a Glomar
response "pursuant to FOIA Exemptions (b)(1) and
(b)(3)" to both, noting that the plaintiff
"declined to act on a recommendation proffered by the
[OGIS], " and the "purported modifications show
no alteration to the scope of records being sought."
Def.'s SJ Mot., Ex. G to Decl. Martha M. Lutz
("CIA's Glomar Resp. to 2014 Requests") at 1-2,
ECF No. 16-5; Def.'s SMF Â¶ 7; Pl.'s Resp. SMF Â¶ 7;
Pl.'s SMF Â¶Â¶ 9, 10. On May 22, 2014, the plaintiff
requested that the CIA review the denial "at the
appellate level and reverse the unreasonable position your
agency has taken" within twenty business days, while
maintaining the position that all administrative remedies
have already been exhausted because the denial was "in
fact a reconsideration of an appellate determination
regarding a previous request." Def.'s SJ Mot., Ex. H
to Decl. Martha M. Lutz ("Pl.'s Appeal of 2014
Denial") at 3, ECF No. 16-5; Def.'s SMF Â¶ 8,
Pl.'s SMF Resp. Â¶ 8; Pl.'s SMF Â¶ 11. In response, on
June 19, 2014, the CIA indicated that it "does not have
a reconsideration mechanism" and that the
plaintiff's May 22, 2014 letter would be processed as
"an administrative appeal... to give [the plaintiff]
maximum consideration." Def.'s SJ Mot., Ex. I to
Decl. Martha M. Lutz at 4, ECF No. 16-5.
a final decision on its appeal, the plaintiff filed the
instant lawsuit. Def.'s SMF Â¶ 11; Pl.'s Resp. SMF Â¶
11; Pl.'s SMF Â¶ 12; see also Compl., ECF No. 1.
The following month, on August 8, 2014, the CIA denied the
appeal. Def.'s SJ Mot., Ex. J to Decl. Martha M. Lutz
("CIA's 2014 Appeal Denial") at 5, ECF No.
16-5. Shortly thereafter, however, on October 1, 2014, the
CIA's Information Management Services Office decided to
"reverse its initial Glomar position and accept
LOOKS'[s] Feb 22, 2014 FOIA requests." Def.'s SJ
Mot., Ex. K to Decl. Martha M. Lutz at 6, ECF No. 16-5. The
plaintiff was assured that "[t]he appropriate Agency
Directorates have been tasked to conduct a reasonable full
text search for records regarding Erich Mielke, "
including, due to the age of the potential documents,
conducting "manual searches in the CIA's Records
Archives." Id. On November 3, 2014, the CIA
informed the plaintiff that the search was completed and had
located twenty-seven responsive documents, thirteen "of
which [were] released in segregable form with redactions made
on the basis of FOIA exemption[s] (b)(1) and/or (b)(3),
" and fourteen of which were withheld "in their
entirety on the basis of FOIA exemption[s] (b)(1) and/or
(b)(3)." Def.'s SJ Mot., Ex. L to Decl. Martha M.
Lutz at 7; Def.'s SMF Â¶ 13; Pl.'s Resp. SMF Â¶ 13;
Pl.'s SMF Â¶ 15. In addition to the documents, the CIA
also produced a Vaughn index. See
Def.'s SJ Mot., Ex. M to Decl. Martha M. Lutz ("
Vaughn Index"), ECF No. 16-6.
nearly five months of "confer[ring] in order to
determine whether any of the issues in contention may be
resolved, " Def.'s Consent Mot. for Extension of
Time to File Its Mot. Summ. J. at 1, ECF No. 11, and five
extensions of time, the CIA filed its motion for summary
judgment on April 2, 2015, see Def.'s SJ Mot.
Over a month later, the plaintiff moved for leave to file the
operative First Amended Complaint, which was granted.
See Pl.'s Mot. for Leave to File Am. Compl., ECF
No. 23; Minute Order, dated June 19, 2015; FAC. The CIA
subsequently filed a supplemental motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's newly asserted second claim seeking relief
under the FOIA and the APA. See Def.'s Mot.
Dismiss. The plaintiff also filed its own cross-motion for
partial summary judgment as to a narrow aspect of the FOIA
claim and as to the entirety of the FOIA/APA claim.
See Pl.'s Mot.
the filing of the plaintiff's opposition and
cross-motion, the CIA "re-reviewed all twenty-seven (27)
documents responsive to Plaintiff's FOIA request to
determine whether any additional information could be
released." Def.'s Reply Supp. Summ. J. Mot. and in
Opp'n to Pl.'s Cross-Mot. for Partial Summ. J.
("Def.'s Reply"), Decl. of Antoinette B. Shiner
("Shiner Decl.") Â¶ 17, ECF No. 42-1. This
re-review, undertaken by the CIA on its own initiative,
resulted in the release of (1) three documents in full that
were previously released in redacted form, (2) additional
information in each of the remaining documents that were
previously produced in redacted form, and (3) certain
information in three documents that were previously withheld
in full. See generally id. All three pending motions
are now ripe for resolution.
enacted the FOIA as a means "to open agency action to
the light of public scrutiny, " Am. Civil Liberties
Union v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 750 F.3d 927, 929
(D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting Dep't of Air Force v.
Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976)), and "to promote
the broad disclosure of Government records' by generally
requiring federal agencies to make their records available to
the public on request, " DiBacco v. U.S. Army,
795 F.3d 178, 183 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (citing Dep't of
Justice v. Julian, 486 U.S. 1, 8 (1988)). As the Supreme
Court has "consistently recognized[, ]... the basic
objective of the Act is disclosure." Chrysler Corp.
v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 290 (1979). At the same time,
the statute represents a "balance [of] the public's
interest in governmental transparency against legitimate
governmental and private interests that could be harmed by
release of certain types of information." United
Techs. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 601 F.3d 557,
559 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). Reflecting that balance, the FOIA contains nine
exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. Â§ 552(b), which "are
explicitly made exclusive and must be narrowly
construed." Milner v. U.S. Dep't of Navy,
562 U.S. 562, 565 (2011) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted) (citing FBI v. Abramson, 456 U.S.
615, 630 (1982)); see Murphy v. Exec. Office for
U.S. Attys., 789 F.3d 204, 206 (D.C. Cir. 2015);
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S.
Dep't of Justice (" CREW "), 746
F.3d 1082, 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2014); Pub. Citizen, Inc. v.
Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 598 F.3d 865, 869 (D.C. Cir.
2010). "[T]hese limited exemptions do not obscure the
basic policy that disclosure, not secrecy, is the dominant
objective of the Act." Rose, 425 U.S. at 361.
agency invoking an exemption has the burden "to
establish that the requested information is exempt."
Fed. Open Mkt. Comm. of Fed. Reserve Sys. v.
Merrill, 443 U.S. 340, 352 (1979); see U.S.
Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of
Press, 489 U.S. 749, 755 (1989); DiBacco, 795
F.3d at 195; CREW, 746 F.3d at 1088; Elec.
Frontier Found. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 739 F.3d
1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2014), cert. denied sub nom.
Elec. Frontier Found. v. Dep't of Justice, 135
S.Ct. 356 (2014); Assassination Archives & Research Ctr.
v. CIA, 334 F.3d 55, 57 (D.C. Cir. 2003). In order to
carry this burden, an agency must submit sufficiently
detailed affidavits or declarations, a Vaughn index
of the withheld documents, or both, to demonstrate that the
government has analyzed carefully any material withheld, to
enable the court to fulfill its duty of ruling on the
applicability of the exemption, and to enable the adversary
system to operate by giving the requester as much information
as possible, on the basis of which the requester's case
may be presented to the trial court. See Oglesby
v. U.S. Dep't of Army, 79 F.3d 1172, 1176 (D.C. Cir.
1996) ("The description and explanation the agency
offers should reveal as much detail as possible as to the
nature of the document, without actually disclosing
information that deserves protection... [which] serves the
purpose of providing the requestor with a realistic
opportunity to challenge the agency's decision."
(citation omitted)); see also CREW, 746 F.3d at 1088
("The agency may carry that burden by submitting
affidavits that describe the justifications for nondisclosure
with reasonably specific detail, demonstrate that the
information withheld logically falls within the claimed
exemption, and are not controverted by either contrary
evidence in the record nor by evidence of agency bad
faith.'" (quoting Larson v. U.S. Dep't of
State, 565 F.3d 857, 862 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). While
"an agency's task is not herculean[, ]" it must
"describe the justifications for nondisclosure with
reasonably specific detail and demonstrate that the
information withheld logically falls within the claimed
exemption." Murphy, 789 F.3d at 209 (internal
quotation marks omitted) (citing Larson, 565 F.3d at
FOIA provides federal courts with the power to "enjoin
the agency from withholding agency records and to order the
production of any agency records improperly withheld from the
complainant, " 5 U.S.C. Â§ 552(a)(4)(B), and
"directs district courts to determine de novo
whether non-disclosure was permissible, " Elec.
Privacy Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.,
777 F.3d 518, 522 (D.C. Cir. 2015). A district court must
review the Vaughn index and any supporting
declarations "to verify the validity of each claimed
exemption." Summers v. U.S. Dep't of
Justice, 140 F.3d 1077, 1080 (D.C. Cir. 1998). "In
FOIA cases, summary judgment may be granted on the basis of
agency affidavits if they contain reasonable specificity of
detail rather than merely conclusory statements, and if they
are not called into question by contradictory evidence in the
record or by evidence of agency bad faith." Judicial
Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Secret Serv., 726 F.3d 208, 215
(D.C. Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
Consumer Fed'n of Am. v. U.S. Dep't of
Agric., 455 F.3d 283, 287 (D.C. Cir. 2006)).
an agency's justification for invoking a FOIA exemption
is sufficient if it appears logical' or
plausible.'" Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S.
Dep't of Def., 715 F.3d 937, 941 (D.C. Cir. 2013)
(quoting Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep't of
Def., 628 F.3d 612, 619 (D.C. Cir. 2011));
Larson, 565 F.3d at 862 (quoting Wolf, 473
F.3d at 374-75).
district court also has an "affirmative duty" to
consider whether the agency has produced all segregable,
non-exempt information. Elliott v. U.S. Dep't of
Agric., 596 F.3d 842, 851 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (referring to
court's "affirmative duty to consider the
segregability issue sua sponte ") (quoting
Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108, 1123 (D.C. Cir.
2007)); Stolt-Nielsen Transp. Grp. Ltd. v. United
States, 534 F.3d 728, 734 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
("[B]efore approving the application of a FOIA
exemption, the district court must make specific findings of
segregability regarding the documents to be withheld.")
(quoting Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d
1106, 1116 (D.C. Cir. 2007)); Trans-Pac. Policing
Agreement v. U.S. Customs Serv., 177 F.3d 1022, 1028
(D.C. Cir. 1999) ("[W]e believe that the District Court
had an affirmative duty to consider the segregability issue
sua sponte ... even if the issue has not been
specifically raised by the FOIA plaintiff."); see
also 5 U.S.C. Â§ 552(b) ("Any reasonably segregable
portion of a record shall be provided to any person
requesting such record after deletion of the portions which
are exempt under this subsection.").
noted, the plaintiff asserts two claims against the CIA. The
first claim, brought under the FOIA, challenges the CIA's
response to the plaintiff's two 2014 FOIA Requests,
including the adequacy of the search and the applicability of
the cited exemptions. See FAC Â¶ 30; Pl.'s Mem.
Supp. Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J. ("Pl.'s
Mem.") at 6, 13, ECF No. 31. The second claim alleges
that the CIA failed to follow its own regulation, 32 C.F.R. Â§
1900.13(j), when it combined the plaintiff's two 2014
FOIA requests in order to "allow it to continue to argue
that LOOKS['s] request was too broad, " in violation
of the FOIA and the APA. FAC Â¶Â¶ 38, 41. Each of the
plaintiff's claims is addressed separately below.
First Cause of Action-Challenging CIA's Response to
Plaintiff's 2014 FOIA Requests
seeks summary judgment on the plaintiff's FOIA claim
because (1) "the CIA conducted an adequate search of its
records systems, " Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J.
("Def.'s SJ Mem.") at 4, ECF No. 16; (2)
"the CIA properly applied FOIA exemptions, "
id. at 12; and (3) "all reasonably segregable
material has been released to plaintiff, " id.
at 20. The plaintiff disputes each of these assertions and,
on cross-motion, seeks partial summary judgment on "all
withholdings made pursuant to the CIA Act of 1949 which are
not personnel-related." Pl.'s Mot. at 1. For the
reasons set out below, the Court is persuaded that the CIA is
entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's FOIA
Adequacy of the CIA's Search
receiving a FOIA request, federal agencies are "required
to perform more than a perfunctory search" to identify
potential responsive records. Ancient Coin Collectors
Guild v. U.S. Dep't of State, 641 F.3d 504, 514
(D.C. Cir. 2011). Instead, the agency bears the burden of
demonstrating that it "made a good faith effort to
conduct a search using methods which can be reasonably
expected to produce the information requested.'"
DiBacco, 795 F.3d at 188 (internal alterations
omitted) (quoting Oglesby, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C.
Cir. 1990)). To meet this burden, the agency must
"demonstrate beyond material doubt that its search was
reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant
documents.'" Valencia-Lucena U.S. Coast
Guard, 180 F.3d 321, 325 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (quoting
Truitt v. Dep't of State, 897 F.2d 540, 542
(D.C. Cir. 1990)). At the summary judgment stage, an agency
may meet this burden by submitting a "reasonably
detailed affidavit, setting forth the search terms and the
type of search performed, and averring that all files likely
to contain responsive materials (if such records exist) were
searched.'" Ancient Coin Collectors Guild,
641 F.3d at 514 (quoting Valencia-Lucena, 180 F.3d
at 326). Such an affidavit must "explain in reasonable
detail the scope and method of the search conducted by the
agency.'" See Morley, 508 F.3d at
1121 (internal alterations omitted) (quoting Perry v.
Block, 684 F.2d 121, 127 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). "Agency
affidavits-so long as they are relatively detailed and
non-conclusory'-are accorded a presumption of good faith,
which cannot be rebutted by purely speculative claims about
the existence and discoverability of other
documents.'" Mobley v. CIA, 806 F.3d 568,
581 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting SafeCard Servs., Inc. v.
SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991)); see
also DeBrew v. Atwood, 792 F.3d 118, 123 (D.C.
Cir. 2015). Only where "a review of the record raises
substantial doubt, particularly in view of well defined
requests and positive indications of overlooked materials,
'" should summary judgment be denied. Iturralde
v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311, 314 (D.C. Cir.
2003) (quoting Valencia-Lucena, 180 F.3d at 326).
the CIA initially submitted a declaration from the
Information Review Officer ("IRO") in the
Litigation Information Review Office, describing the agency
components tasked with conducting the searches, the
individuals who conducted the searches, \ their
qualifications, and the search terms and methods used.
See Def.'s SJ Mot., Decl. of Martha M. Lutz
("Lutz Decl."), ECF No. 16-2. As detailed in the
declaration, the CIA's records are maintained in
decentralized "components" belonging to one of five
Directorates-the Directorate of Operations ("DO"),
the Directorate of Analysis ("DA"), the Directorate
of Science and Technology ("DS&T"), the Directorate
of Support ("DS"), and the Director's Area
("DIR"). Lutz Decl. Â¶Â¶ 6-7. Upon receipt, a
FOIA request is assigned to the CIA's Information
Management Services ("IMS") group, where
"experienced IMS professionals analyze the request and
determine which CIA Directorates reasonably might be expected
to possess responsive records." Id. Â¶ 6.
case, IMS first forwarded the plaintiff's request for all
records "about... Erich Mielke" to the DA, DO and
DIR, "the only Directorates reasonably likely to have
records responsive to the request" regarding a foreign
national. Id. Â¶ 30. The DA "is the CIA
Directorate that analyzes, interprets, and forecasts foreign
intelligence issues and world events of importance to the
United States, " and is "responsible for the
production of finished intelligence reports for dissemination
to policymakers in the U.S. Government." Id. Â¶
9. The DO is "the organization within the CIA
responsible for the clandestine collection of foreign
intelligence from human sources"; specifically, the DO
contains "information on persons who are of foreign
intelligence or counterintelligence interest to the CIA and
other U.S. Government agencies." Id. Â¶ 8. The
DIR "is a cluster of offices directly responsible to the
Director of the CIA-such as the Office of General Counsel
("OGC"), the Office of Inspector General, the
Office of Congressional Affairs, and CIO." Id.
Â¶ 12. DS&T and DS were not tasked "because there was no
reasonable expectation that a search of these Directorates
would locate information [about] a minister with a foreign
government." Id. Â¶ 30. DA, DO and DIR were
tasked to conduct "a full-text' keyword search of
their respective non-exempt [electronic and hard copy]
records repositories using Eric, ' Mielke' and state
security' as search parameters." Id. Â¶Â¶
30-31. Files maintained by the DO that are subject to the
"operational file exemption' or ops file exemption,
'" under the National Security Act of 1947
("NSA"), 50 U.S.C. Â§ 3141, were not searched.
Id. Â¶ 8. In sifting through potentially responsive
records, the CIA excluded documents that "incidentally
mention Erich Mielke, or are merely directories/reference
aids listing various leaders within foreign governments,
" based on the understanding that these documents are
not "about... Erich Mielke, " as requested by the
plaintiff. Id. Â¶ 34.
to the CIA, this declaration "establishes that the CIA
has made a good faith effort to conduct a search for the
requested records, using methods which can be reasonably
expected to produce the information requested, and has
conducted a search of all locations that are likely to yield
documents responsive to Plaintiff's FOIA requests."
Def.'s SJ Mem. at 9-10 (citing Nation Magazine,
Washington Bureau v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885,
892 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Miller v. United States
Dep't of State, 779 F.2d 1378, 1383 (8th Cir. 1985)
(citing Nat'l Cable Television Ass'n v. FCC,
479 F.2d 183, 186 (D.C. Cir. 1973))). The plaintiff counters
that the CIA has not met its burden of establishing that an
adequate and reasonable search was conducted for responsive
materials, because the CIA (1) "provided no information
about its searches of the [DA, DO, ] and the Director's
Area ("DIR") beyond the conclusory assertion that
the searches were thorough and reasonably calculated to
uncover any relevant material'"; (2) "did not
search for records including the term Stasi, ' despite
clearly knowing that that was the name by which the Ministry
of State Security was best known;" (3) "adopted a
very narrow reading of LOOKS' requests"; and (4)
"wrongly refused to search entire systems of records
under the theory that they were categorically exempt as
operational files.'" Pl.'s Mem. at 6 (quoting
Lutz Decl. Â¶ 31). These four arguments are addressed
The Adequacy of the Declaration Regarding the ...