Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Citizens Against UFO Secrecy, Inc. v. United States Department of Defense
Citation: 21 F. App'x 774Docket: No. 00-16036; D.C. No. CV-99-00108-SMM
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; November 13, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
Citizens Against UFO Secrecy, Inc. filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to obtain records related to a triangular aerial object. The district court ruled in favor of the DoD, granting summary judgment, finding that the agency conducted an adequate search that did not yield any relevant documents. The court referenced the standard established in Zemansky v. EPA, emphasizing that the adequacy of the search, not the existence of documents, is the focal point. The DoD provided detailed affidavits outlining the search process, including the specific keywords utilized and communications sent to employees. The Plaintiff challenged the thoroughness of the search, arguing that the initial response was inadequate, but the court found that subsequent actions rectified any deficiencies. The Plaintiff also contended that the search parameters were poorly defined and that the inclusion of additional search terms would hinder finding relevant documents. However, the court noted that a disjunctive search was reasonable and that extra terms could enhance document retrieval. The Plaintiff criticized the email request to employees as being too brief, but the court found that it effectively summarized the request and encouraged further inquiries. Claims regarding the search being improperly limited to DARPA-related records were dismissed as speculative. The court addressed a procedural error regarding a form filled out by a DoD employee, clarifying that there was no inconsistency in the affidavit provided. Lastly, the Plaintiff's reliance on eyewitness affidavits to assert the existence of documents was deemed speculative and insufficient to create a material fact dispute. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that speculation does not equate to evidence of document existence. This ruling is not to be published or cited in future cases except under specific circuit rules.