Case 1:15-cv-02117-RDM Document 12 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 12

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
JASON LEOPOLD,

Case No. 15-cv-02117 RDM

DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE
I.

INTRODUCTION
Defendant’s submission of a classified ex parte, in camera declaration in support

of its Motion for Summary Judgment complied with well-established procedures in this
Circuit for deciding cases under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).
The public declaration of David M. Hardy (“Hardy Decl.”), see ECF No. 9-1,
which was filed concurrently with Defendant’s Motion, provided detailed information
sufficient to establish, as a matter of law, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”)
conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request and
properly withheld responsive information pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7(A). See Hardy
Decl. ¶¶ 10-24. The Hardy Declaration also explained, however, that the FBI could not
provide more information on the public record without adversely affecting the ongoing
investigation that is the subject of Plaintiff’s FOIA request. See id. ¶¶ 15, 19-20, 22. For
this reason, the FBI lodged a classified, in camera declaration to supplement its

1

 Case 1:15-cv-02117-RDM Document 12 Filed 04/26/16 Page 2 of 12

demonstration on the public record that it has complied with its obligations under FOIA
with respect to Plaintiff’s request.
The D.C. Circuit has specifically permitted the review of in camera declarations
in these circumstances, and this procedure is routinely followed by judges in this District.
Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary are based largely on cases from outside this Circuit
that do not arise under FOIA. Nor is there merit to Plaintiff’s contention that the FBI
should have sought leave of Court or notified Plaintiff in advance of filing its classified
ex parte, in camera declaration – no such requirement exists in this Circuit. Moreover,
the filing of a redacted version of the declaration, as Plaintiff requests, would provide no
additional information that is not already contained in the Hardy Declaration and was
therefore not required under this Circuit’s precedent. Accordingly, the Court should deny
Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Cause.
II.

BACKGROUND
This case concerns a November 3, 2015 FOIA request to the FBI for several

categories of information relating to any records retrieved from electronic equipment
obtained from former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. After an initial status
conference held on February 9, 2016, see Jan. 21, 2016 Minute Order, the Court ordered
Defendant to file a motion for summary judgment based on Exemption 7(A) of FOIA on
or before March 25, 2016. See Feb. 9, 2016 Minute Order. 1
Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment in accordance with the Court’s
Order. See ECF No. 7. In support of the Motion, Defendant filed the Declaration of
David M. Hardy. See ECF No. 9-1, Hardy Decl. Defendant also filed a Notice of
1

That order also stated that “[b]y filing such a motion, Defendant does not waive its
right to later assert other FOIA exemptions.” Feb. 9, 2016 Minute Order.
2

 Case 1:15-cv-02117-RDM Document 12 Filed 04/26/16 Page 3 of 12

Lodging of Classified, In Camera, Ex Parte Declaration, informing Plaintiff and the
Court that Defendant was lodging with the Department of Justice’s Classified
Information Security Officer a classified declaration for the Court’s in camera, ex parte
review in support of Defendant’s Motion. See ECF No. 8. On April 19, 2016, Plaintiff
filed a Motion to Show Cause why Defendant should not be required to file a redacted
version of the declaration on the public record, or in the alternative requested that the
declaration be stricken. See ECF No. 11.
III.

ARGUMENT
A.

In Camera, Ex Parte Submissions Are Permitted in FOIA Cases,
Where Appropriate.

The D.C. Circuit has made clear that district courts have the inherent authority to
examine documents in camera, authority that Congress specifically referenced in FOIA
itself. Arieff v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 712 F.2d 1462, 1469 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (citing 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(a)(4)(B) (authorizing courts to “examine the contents of . . . agency records in
camera to determine whether such records or any part thereof shall be withheld under any
of the exemptions . . . .”)). Therefore, “the receipt of in camera affidavits . . . when
necessary . . . [is] part of a trial judge’s procedural arsenal.” Id. (internal quotation
omitted); see also Hayden v. NSA, 608 F.2d 1381, 1385 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (“By providing
for In camera review, Congress has acknowledged that judges must sometimes make
these decisions without full benefit of adversary comment on a complete public record.
The present case is one example where some of the interests of the adversary process are

3

 Case 1:15-cv-02117-RDM Document 12 Filed 04/26/16 Page 4 of 12

outweighed by the nation’s legitimate interests in secrecy and orderly process for
disclosure.”). 2
“This court has approved the procedure in FOIA cases, most frequently in
connection with an agency’s assertion of Exemption 1, relating to classified materials, but
on occasion with regard to the assertion of other exemptions as well.” Arieff, 712 F.2d at
1469 (approving district court’s review of in camera affidavit when evaluating
Exemption 6 claim and citing, inter alia, Campbell v. HHS, 682 F.2d 256, 265 (D.C. Cir.
1982) (suggesting that, on remand, district court could accept in camera submissions to
support Exemption 7(A) claim)) (internal citation omitted). In fact, the review of in
camera submissions can be particularly appropriate in Exemption 7(A) cases. To
demonstrate that information is properly withheld under that Exemption, the agency must
show that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement
proceedings. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). Often the agency cannot fully articulate the harm
that could reasonably be expected to result if the information is disclosed without
revealing the very information regarding the investigation that the agency seeks to
protect. See Campbell, 682 F.2d at 265 (in Exemption 7(A) cases, “the interests of the
adversary process may be outweighed by the agency’s legitimate interest in secrecy”).

2

While in Hayden the agency requested court permission to file classified affidavits in
camera, there was no suggestion that this was required, and the request arose in a
different procedural context than the situation here. 608 F.2d at 1383. The agency had
already filed an affidavit that the district court had found insufficient under Vaughn v.
Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), and granted the plaintiff’s motion for detailed
itemization, indexing, and justification for non-disclosure. Id. The agency responded
with a supplemental affidavit and a request to file classified affidavits, because further
justification would have required the use of evidence that was itself classified and
sensitive. Id.
4

 Case 1:15-cv-02117-RDM Document 12 Filed 04/26/16 Page 5 of 12

While receiving an ex parte, in camera affidavit “should be chosen only where
absolutely necessary,” Arieff, 712 F.2d at 1471 (internal quotations omitted), this
“necessity exists when (1) the validity of the government’s assertion of exemption cannot
be evaluated without information beyond that contained in the public affidavits and in the
records themselves, and (2) public disclosure of that information would compromise the
secrecy asserted.” Id. The unique nature of FOIA cases makes the consideration of in
camera declarations more common:
FOIA cases as a class present an unusual problem that demands an
unusual solution: One party knows the contents of the withheld
records while the other does not; and the courts have been charged
with the responsibility of deciding the dispute without altering that
unequal condition, since that would involve disclosing the very
material sought to be kept secret. The task can often not be
performed by proceeding in the traditional fashion, so that what is
a rarity among our cases [the submission of ex parte filings] generally
must become a commonplace in this unique field.
Id. Moreover, while a court must create “as complete a public record as possible” in
FOIA cases, there is no need to release a redacted version of an in camera declaration
when doing so would “merely duplicate[] material already in the public record.” Hayden,
608 F.2d at 1385, 1389.
B.

Defendant’s Submission of an In Camera Declaration Was
Appropriate Under the Circumstances, and Filing a Redacted
Declaration Would Not Provide Plaintiff With any Additional
Information.

Defendant’s submission of a classified in camera, ex parte declaration in support
of is Motion for Summary Judgment was entirely appropriate. Defendant submitted the
public declaration of David M. Hardy in support of its Motion. See ECF No. 9-1, Hardy
Decl. This declaration provides detailed information sufficient to establish, as a matter of
law, that the FBI conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to Plaintiff’s
5

 Case 1:15-cv-02117-RDM Document 12 Filed 04/26/16 Page 6 of 12

FOIA request and properly withheld responsive information pursuant to FOIA Exemption
7(A). See Hardy Decl. ¶¶ 10-24. The Hardy Declaration also explained that the FBI
cannot provide more information on the public record without adversely affecting the
ongoing investigation that is the subject of Plaintiff’s FOIA request. See id. ¶¶ 15, 19-20,
22.
Records responsive to Plaintiff’s request that are subject to FOIA relate to a
pending investigation. Id. ¶ 18. The FBI has stated publicly that it received and “is
working on a referral [from] Inspectors General in connection with former Secretary
Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server.” Id. ¶ 15 (quoting Oversight of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. 32
(2015) (statement of FBI Director James Comey)). However, “[b]eyond Director
Comey’s acknowledgment of the security referral from the Inspectors General of the
Intelligence Community and the Department of State, the FBI has not and cannot publicly
acknowledge the specific focus, scope, or potential targets of any such investigation
without adversely affecting the investigation.” Id.
The FBI therefore submitted a classified in camera, ex parte declaration to
provide the Court with additional details to demonstrate that responsive information was
properly withheld, and explained on the public record that this was the purpose of the in
camera declaration. Id. ¶ 22 (“The FBI is submitting an in camera, ex parte declaration
to provide additional details demonstrating that it has properly protected records
responsive to plaintiff’s request.”). Only one paragraph of the in camera declaration
contains information that is not classified or otherwise exempt under 5 U.S.C.

6

 Case 1:15-cv-02117-RDM Document 12 Filed 04/26/16 Page 7 of 12

§ 552(b)(7)(A), and this one paragraph repeats information that is already contained in
the Hardy Declaration. 3
Defendant’s submission thus satisfies the standard in the D.C. Circuit for a court’s
consideration of an in camera declaration. While the detail in the Hardy Declaration is
sufficient for the Court to grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, to the extent
the Court disagrees, consideration of the in camera declaration would provide the Court
with additional information to evaluate the FBI’s assertions. See Hayden, 608 F.2d at
1388 (affidavit submitted in camera spelled out justification for non-disclosure with
greater specificity). 4 Moreover, the Hardy Declaration states that public disclosure of
additional information would compromise the very information that the FBI asserts is
protected by Exemption 7(A). See Hardy Decl. ¶ 22 (“The FBI is limited in the amount
of detail it can provide on the public record in order to defend its protection of
information in this FOIA matter without adversely affecting its active, ongoing
investigation.”).
Finally, ordering Defendant to file a redacted version of the declaration on the
public record, as Plaintiff requests, would not further the goal of providing as complete a
public record as possible. See Hayden, 608 F.2d at 1385, 1388-89 (district court
reasonably decided not to order portions of classified affidavit disclosed). Such a filing
would provide no additional information, as the only paragraph that could be publicly
3

The identity of the declarant for the classified in camera, ex parte affidavit cannot be
disclosed without revealing information that could reasonably be expected to interfere
with the FBI’s pending investigation.
4

See also Cucci v. DEA, 871 F. Supp. 508, 511 n.2 (D.D.C. 1994) (“Because the Court
concludes on the basis of Mr. Moran’s public declaration that the agency has complied
with the FOIA, it need not and does not consider Mr. Moran’s in camera declaration.”).
7

 Case 1:15-cv-02117-RDM Document 12 Filed 04/26/16 Page 8 of 12

released is one paragraph that repeats information that is already contained in the Hardy
Declaration.
Courts in this Circuit have considered in camera declarations in similar
circumstances, without any mention of redacted versions being filed on the public
record. 5 See Campbell, 682 F.2d at 265 (remanding for the district court to consider
submissions justifying the withholding of records under Exemption 7(A) and noting that
“the district court, in its discretion, may accept in camera submissions”); August v. FBI,
328 F.3d 697, 699, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (granting petition for panel rehearing after
reviewing attached in camera declaration, and remanding to the district court “for in
camera consideration of the applicability of FOIA Exemptions 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E)”);
Elkins v. FAA, Civil Action No. 14-1791 (JEB), 2015 WL 5579542 (D.D.C. Sept. 21,
2015) (granting motion for reconsideration and finding that a record could be withheld
under Exemption 7(E) based on in camera motion and declarations, which contained
classified information); Life Extension Found. v. IRS, 915 F. Supp. 2d 174, 186 (D.D.C.
2013), aff’d, 559 Fed. App’x 3 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 25, 2014) (reviewing in camera
declarations and finding that agency properly invoked Exemptions 3 and 7(D) where the
“in camera declarations provide additional details explaining why the IRS has not
described any investigation or informant information in any greater detail in its public

5

The Court does not need to conduct in camera review of any of the records at issue
before determining whether review of the in camera declaration is appropriate. See
Mobley v. CIA, 806 F.3d 568, 588 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“Here, as our own review confirms,
the district court, after reviewing in camera the FBI’s classified declaration, acted within
its sound discretion when it decided that it did not need to review the classified document
in camera to conclude that the FBI withheld it as properly classified.”); Elec. Privacy
Info. Ctr. v. DOJ, 82 F. Supp. 3d 307, 323 (D.D.C. 2015) (declining to conduct in camera
review of documents where “the agencies’ public and ex parte declarations provide
sufficient basis to determine that Exemption 7(A) applies to the responsive documents”).
8

 Case 1:15-cv-02117-RDM Document 12 Filed 04/26/16 Page 9 of 12

submissions”); Barnard v. DHS, 598 F. Supp. 2d 1, 16 (D.D.C. 2009) (“where, as here,
an agency indicates that no additional information concerning an investigation may be
publicly disclosed without revealing precisely the information that the agency seeks to
withhold, the receipt of in camera declarations is appropriate”); id. at 19-20 (considering
in camera declaration in finding that agency met its burden with regard to Exemption
7(A) claim). 6
Plaintiff bases his argument that Defendant’s submission of an in camera
declaration was improper on one D.C. Circuit case that is easily distinguishable, and on
non-FOIA cases. In Lykins v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 725 F.2d 1455, 1466 (D.C. Cir.
1984), relied upon by Plaintiff, the “proper predicates for acceptance of in camera
affidavits were not met” because the district court did not ensure that sufficient
information was placed in the public record. There, the plaintiff “was given no
information concerning which exemptions were claimed for the report, the circumstances
surrounding the report’s creation, the length of the report, the possibility of segregating
exempt portions from nonexempt portions, or the identity of the author of the report.” Id.
at 1465. Here, the Hardy Declaration provides most of this information. See Hardy Decl.
¶¶ 10-23. To the extent the Hardy Declaration does not contain this information, it is not
necessary for the Court to assess Defendant’s exemption claim, and placing it on the
public record could compromise the investigation that is the subject of the FOIA request.
Id.; see also Armstrong v. Exec. Office of the President, 97 F.3d 575, 581 (D.C. Cir.
1996) (excusing government’s failure to explain why it used an in camera affidavit and
6

In Barnard, the defendant submitted a motion for leave to file an in camera declaration
after filing its motion for summary judgment, 598 F. Supp. 2d at 7, but there was no
indication that this was required and the declaration did not contain classified
information.
9

 Case 1:15-cv-02117-RDM Document 12 Filed 04/26/16 Page 10 of 12

failed to release as much as possible of the affidavit to the other side because, unlike in
Lykins, submission did not make it impossible for the adversary process to function
effectively).
The remainder of the cases relied on by Plaintiff did not involve FOIA requests,
and most were between private parties (and thus could not have implicated classified or
law enforcement sensitive information). Given the unique nature of FOIA cases and
explicit allowance of in camera submissions in the FOIA itself, Arieff, 712 F.2d at 1469,
Plaintiff’s reliance on non-FOIA cases as a basis for questioning Defendant’s submission
of a classified, in camera declaration is inapposite. 7

7

Compare Arieff, 712 F.2d at 1470 (distinguishing FOIA case from cases that involve
pretrial discovery with respect to consideration of in camera submissions) with Pl.’s Mot.
to Show Cause at 5-6 (citing United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 565-71 (1989)
(examining Rules of Evidence and policies underlying the attorney-client privilege to
determine standards for the use of in camera review to establish the applicability of the
crime-fraud exception to the privilege); Bareford v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 973 F.2d
1138, 1144-45 (5th Cir. 1992) (observing, in dicta, that the government should have
provided notice to plaintiffs and opportunity to object to in camera production of
documents and affidavit, but saying that this did not alter conclusion that the very subject
of the case was a state secret, since the court did not rely on the in camera material);
United States v. Hall, 854 F.2d 1036, 1041-42 (7th Cir. 1988) (criminal defendant used
inappropriate procedure when submitting ex parte affidavit to court, and there was no
reason for submission where affidavit did not provide any new evidence of which
government was not already aware); Williams v. Bd. of Trs. for the Univ. of Conn., Case
No. 3:06CV1999 (AWT), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8956 (D. Conn. Feb. 7, 2008)
(defendants violated local rule by submitting affidavit ex parte in support of motion for
protective order without seeking leave of court); Parisi v. Rochester Cardiothoractic
Assocs., 159 F.R.D. 406 (W.D.N.Y. 1995) (rejecting submission for in camera review of
index to a document that was the subject of a discovery dispute)). Moreover, whereas the
Supreme Court in Zolin referenced potential due process implications of routine use of in
camera proceedings, it cited to two cases that also involved in camera submissions to
determine the applicability of the crime-fraud exception, and the circuit courts
determined that the use of such proceedings was appropriate under the circumstances.
See 491 U.S. at 571.
10

 Case 1:15-cv-02117-RDM Document 12 Filed 04/26/16 Page 11 of 12

C.

D.C. Circuit Precedent and This Court’s Local Rules Do Not Require
Prior Notice or Court Approval for the Submission of an In Camera
Declaration in FOIA Cases, Especially Where the Declaration
Contains Classified Information.

Finally, Plaintiff does not point to any D.C. Circuit authority or Local Rule that
required the FBI to seek permission from or provide prior notice to Plaintiff or the Court
before lodging the classified, in camera declaration, and there is none. 8 See, e.g., Life
Extension Found., 915 F. Supp. 2d at 178-79 (considering in camera declarations after
defendant filed notice of lodging). Moreover, to the extent prior notice or permission
might have been the preferred course here, any prejudice caused to Plaintiff by the
lodging of the declaration (which Defendant denies) will be cured by the briefing on
Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Cause and this Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. Defendant has demonstrated why the lodging of, and the Court’s
consideration of, the in camera declaration is proper under D.C. Circuit precedent. While
Defendant believes the Hardy Declaration provides sufficient information for this Court
to grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, if this Court decides to rely on the
in camera declaration in deciding that motion, the Court can explain in its opinion why
its consultation of the declaration was appropriate under the governing law. See
Armstrong, 97 F.3d at 581 (district court committed harmless error by not explaining its
reasons for consulting an in camera affidavit).
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Cause should be denied.

8

The standards for sealing material, see Local Civil Rule 5.1(h), are different than for
lodging classified, in camera declarations, which are lodged with the Department of
Justice’s Classified Information Security Officer to ensure proper safeguarding of
information.
11

 Case 1:15-cv-02117-RDM Document 12 Filed 04/26/16 Page 12 of 12

Dated: April 26, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
BENJAMIN C. MIZER
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
MARCIA BERMAN
Assistant Branch Director
/s/ Jennie L. Kneedler
JENNIE L. KNEEDLER
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Tel. (202) 305-8662
Fax (202) 616-8470
Email: Jennie.L.Kneedler@usdoj.gov
D.C. Bar # 500261
Attorneys for Defendant

12