Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves the legal implications of President Trump's declassification of information related to the Steele Dossier, focusing on whether the release of the Nunes and Schiff Memos impacted the Defendants' Glomar responses to the Plaintiffs' FOIA requests for a two-page synopsis of the Dossier. Initially, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, supporting their Glomar responses. However, following the release of the Nunes Memo, the court re-evaluated its stance, acknowledging that the Memo's content effectively negated the FBI's Glomar response, as it constituted an official acknowledgment of the requested records' existence. The court would grant the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration concerning the FBI upon remand but denied it regarding the Intelligence Community Defendants. The case underscores the nuanced application of Rule 60(b)(2) regarding newly discovered evidence and the doctrine of official acknowledgment, particularly in context with presidential actions and their implications for agency-level FOIA responses. The decision delineates the boundaries of Glomar waivers, confining them to the President's direct authority over specific agencies, thereby maintaining the validity of Glomar responses for other agencies not directly implicated by the released memos.
Legal Issues Addressed
Declassification and Official Acknowledgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court examined whether the release of the Nunes and Schiff Memos served as an official acknowledgment of the existence of records sought by the Plaintiffs, thereby invalidating the Defendants' Glomar responses.
Reasoning: The court ultimately concludes that the disclosures in the Nunes and Schiff Memos do represent a public acknowledgment of the existence of the requested records, thus negating the FBI’s Glomar responses.
Glomar Responses and FOIA Requestssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Defendants employed Glomar responses to refuse confirmation or denial of the existence of records requested under FOIA, which the court initially upheld but later reconsidered in light of the Nunes Memo.
Reasoning: In the litigation, Defendants employed Glomar responses for Items Two and Three, refusing to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records.
Limitations of Glomar Waivers to Specific Agenciessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the President's acknowledgment applies only to the agency he oversees, and thus does not negate Glomar responses from unrelated agencies within the Executive Branch.
Reasoning: The court clarifies that a presidential acknowledgment regarding one agency does not automatically negate Glomar responses for unrelated agencies.
Presidential Authority and Agency Waiversubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The release of the Nunes Memo by President Trump was considered an official acknowledgment, which waived the FBI's ability to use Glomar responses regarding the Plaintiffs' request for the synopsis.
Reasoning: By authorizing the release of the Nunes Memo, the President has acknowledged the existence of the synopsis in Comey's possession, thus the FBI cannot continue to assert a Glomar response to this request.
Rule 60(b)(2) - Relief from Judgment Based on New Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the court's prior judgment based on newly discovered evidence, specifically the release of the Nunes and Schiff Memos, which they argued affected the outcome of the case.
Reasoning: Under Rule 60(b)(2), relief from a final judgment can be granted based on newly discovered evidence that could not have been uncovered with reasonable diligence before trial.