*360James H. Lesar, Law Office of James H. Lesar, Silver Spring, MD, Dan
L. Hardway, Dan Hardway Law Office PLLC, Cowen, WV, for Plaintiff., Johnny Hillary
Walker, III, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendants., CHRISTOPHER
R. COOPER, United States District Judge *361Over a half-century after President
Kennedy's assassination, theories still abound as to who was responsible. Investigative
journalist David Talbot points the finger at the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA").
In a quest for supporting evidence, Talbot filed Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA")
requests with the CIA and the State Department for passport and travel records of
two deceased CIA agents who Talbot suspects were aware of the agency's involvement
in the assassination, or worse. Talbot apparently seeks the records in order to
link the agents' comings and goings to the known whereabouts of other characters
in the continuing whodunit., In this suit, Talbot challenges the adequacy of the
agencies' searches in response to his requests and the appropriateness of their
reliance on a number of FOIA exemptions to withhold otherwise responsive records.
Both sides now seek summary judgment. For the reasons explained further below, the
Court will grant summary judgment to the agencies with two exceptions: it concludes
that (1) the State Department's search for passports issued to one of the agents
under two pseudonyms was unduly restrictive and (2) certain potentially responsive
records in operational files that the CIA claimed were exempt from disclosure fall
under an exception to that exemption and, consequently, the CIA must either search
the files for those records or explain why no responsive records are likely to be
found there., David Talbot is a journalist, author, and co-founder of the online
newspaper Salon.com. Compl. ¶ 1. He has written multiple books covering the historical
period of the presidency of John F. Kennedy, including the Kennedy assassination.
Id. ¶¶ 1-3. In May 2013, in connection with research for a now-published book on
former CIA Director Allen Dulles, Talbot submitted FOIA requests to the Department
of State and the CIA. The request to the State Department sought "[a]ll passport
and visa records pertaining to" two former CIA agents, William King Harvey and F.
Mark Wyatt, from January 1, 1950 through July 1, 1976, as well as copies of all
photographs of the two men. Id. Ex. 1. The request to the CIA also sought records
related to Wyatt and Harvey, specifically "[a]ll records pertaining to temporary
duty (TDY) travel," "[a]ll passport and visa records," "[a]ll records reflecting
assignment to a[ ] station, post, base, unit or other component of the CIA," and
"[a]ll photographs pertaining to" the two from January 1, 1950 to July 1, 1976 for
Harvey and from January 1, 1948 to 1975 for Wyatt. Id. Ex. 6., State and the CIA
informed Talbot they had received his requests and began processing them. Id. ¶¶
11, 20. When the agencies failed to fully process Talbot's requests, he brought
suit against them in this Court. After production was completed, both parties filed
motions for summary judgment, with Talbot challenging the agencies' searches and
their withholdings. The Court held a hearing on the motions on May 15, 2018., Under
FOIA, an agency is first required to make an adequate search for any responsive
records. Rodriguez v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 236 F.Supp.3d 26, 34 (D.D.C. 2017). In
reviewing an agency's search, courts apply a "reasonableness" test that looks to
the methods and not the fruits of a search. Id. To prove its search was reasonable,
the agency "must show that it 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." Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir.
1990). The agency may rely on affidavits that detail "what records were searched,
by whom, and through what process" to make this showing. Steinberg v. U.S. Dep't
of Justice, 23 F.3d 548, 552 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Agency affidavits are "accorded a
presumption of good faith." SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C.
Cir. 1991)., Talbot challenges nearly every aspect of the State Department's and
the CIA's response to his FOIA requests.1 He first *363contends that neither agency
performed an adequate search for records. He next argues that both agencies' withholdings
were improper. Finally, he argues that the agencies have not met their obligations
to segregate non-exempt material from the withheld records. The Court will begin
in Foggy Bottom before traveling to Langley., Talbot challenges the State Department's
search and production on several grounds: that (1) the Department's search for
records responsive to his May 2013 request was inadequate, (2) its withholdings
were improper, and (3) it failed to respond to a separate April 2016 request he
submitted. While the Court will grant the Department summary judgment as to its
withholdings, the April 2016 request, and its search for Agent Wyatt's records,
it will deny both motions without prejudice as to the adequacy of the Department's
search for passport records associated with Agent Harvey's two pseudonyms., The
State Department's search for passport records for both Harvey and Wyatt is described
in declarations submitted by Eric F. Stein, the Director of the Department's Office
of Information Programs and Services. According to Mr. Stein, the Department determined
that any responsive records were likely to be found in the Department's Office
of Passport Services because that office handles the issuance of passports to U.S.
citizens. Decl. of Eric F. Stein ¶¶ 14-15. Department personnel conducted a search
of several electronic databases that typically contain records for more recent passports,
but also include some imaged records for older passports. Id. ¶¶ 16-17, 20. These
personnel searched for records listing Harvey's name and birthdate, Wyatt's name
and birthdate, or two pseudonyms used by Harvey that Talbot provided and Harvey's
actual birthdate. Id. ¶¶ 16-17, 20. Additionally, Department personnel searched
the agency's archived hard copy passport files, again for passport records with
Harvey's name and birthdate, Wyatt's name and birthdate, or Harvey's two pseudonyms
and actual birthdate. Id. ¶¶ 18, 21. The Department found ten documents pertaining
to Wyatt but none to Harvey. Id. ¶¶ 19, 22., Talbot advances several arguments as
to why this search was inadequate, all but one of which are unavailing. First, Talbot
faults the Department for searching using only Harvey's and Wyatt's first and
last names rather than their full names including their middle names. Mem. P. &
A. Opp'n Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. & Supp. Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. ("Pl.'s Cross-MSJ")
at 12-13, 16. But Mr. Stein clarifies in a supplemental declaration that any results
from the search using first and last names would necessarily include results associated
with their full names. Suppl. Decl. of Eric F. Stein ¶¶ 5, 8., Next, Talbot contends
that the Department should have searched for records related to two specific passports,
which other records produced by the Department indicated were used by Wyatt. Pl.'s
Cross-MSJ at 18. In his supplemental declaration, however, Mr. Stein attests that
the Department ran an additional search for any responsive records related to those
two passports and found none. Suppl. Decl. of Eric F. Stein ¶¶ 10-12., Third, Talbot
contends that the search excluded theoretical locations where records could have
been found. He speculates, for instance, that there must be some sort of "records
system relating to passport services provided to CIA officers" that the Department
neglected to search. Pl.'s Cross-MSJ at 14. Similarly, Talbot argues *364that the
Department also needed to search "employment and personnel records relating to employees
who receive 'special passports.' " Id. at 17. But as the Department notes, Talbot's
request was for passport and visa records pertaining to Wyatt and Harvey, not for
any records or even for any employment or personnel records. See Compl. Ex. 1. The
Department does not typically create or maintain records on visas that Americans
receive from foreign countries-those are housed with the foreign country authorizing
the visa. Decl. of Eric F. Stein ¶ 14 n.1. As to passport records, the Department
has explained why the locations searched-the electronic and paper records of the
office responsible for processing and issuing passports to U.S. citizens-were the
logical places to find any responsive records. Id. ¶¶ 14-15., Talbot also contends
that the search for Harvey's passport records was inadequate because the Department
failed to find any responsive records-a result he argues "beggars belief" because
Harvey "was a CIA officer serving in overseas posts in the 1950s and 1960s" and
it is "well documented that he travelled extensively during that time." Pl.'s Cross-MSJ
at 14. But it is well-settled that the adequacy of a search "is generally determined
not by the fruits of the search, but by the appropriateness of the methods used
to carry out the search." Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311, 315
(D.C. Cir. 2003). Records, especially ones that are several decades old, "may have
been accidentally lost or destroyed, or a reasonable and thorough search may have
missed them." Id. The Department has attested that it searched the place most likely
to contain passport records using reasonable terms, namely Harvey's name and birthdate.,
Talbot's final argument fares better. When the Department searched for passports
issued under two pseudonyms that Harvey is known to have used, it limited its search
to records containing those pseudonyms and Harvey's actual birthdate. Decl. of
Eric F. Stein ¶ 18. It strikes the Court as unlikely that a CIA officer using a
pseudonym would list his real birthdate with the false name rather than a false
birthdate. The Department's declarations offer nothing to support a contrary conclusion.
The Court therefore concludes that the Department's search for only records reflecting
Harvey's actual birthdate was too narrow. As a result, the search was not reasonably
calculated to find all responsive records. The Court will, accordingly, deny both
motions without prejudice as to this aspect of the Department's search and will
require a further search for records associated with Harvey's pseudonyms., Next,
Talbot challenges the State Department's decision to withhold certain information
pursuant to Exemption 6. As explained by Johnathan Rolbin, the Director of Legal
Affairs and Law Enforcement Liaison for the Department's Passport Services Directorate,
the Department redacted from the disclosed records the names and signatures of Department
employees and the names, birth dates, and places of birth of Wyatt's then-minor
children. Decl. of Johnathan M. Rolbin ¶¶ 5, 9-12. As to the details regarding Wyatt's
children, the Department concluded that the release of that information "would reveal
private details of these individuals' lives, including when and how these individuals
were documented as U.S. citizens" and "other biographical information in which these
individuals have a privacy interest" but would "shed no light on the operations
and activities of the U.S. government." Id. ¶ 9. For the Department employees, it
was felt that the release of the redacted information could "subject them (and their
family members) to harassment, violence, or even improper civil judgments outside
of the workplace." Id. ¶ 10; see also id. ¶¶ 11-12. For instance, Mr. Rolbin explains
that "Department employees involved in passport adjudication process have been named
personally in state court lawsuits seeking personal monetary civil judgments" and
"have been subject to personal threats and harassing communications," even if the
employees no longer work for the Department. Id. ¶ 10; see also id. ¶¶ 11-12., Additionally,
Talbot suggests that the Department's redactions were inappropriate because it
failed to verify that the individuals whose names were redacted were still alive
(and deceased individuals *366lack a sufficient privacy interest to justify the
application of Exemption 6 in this context). Pl.'s Cross-MSJ at 22. But in a supplemental
declaration, Mr. Rolbin explains that the Department verified whether the individuals
at issue were alive and released additional records for those it concluded were
not. Suppl. Decl. of Johnathan M. Rolbin ¶ 4. It made these determinations using
human resources files, the Social Security Death Matrix File, and a precautionary
presumption that individuals born within 100 years are still alive. Id. The Department's
approach as outlined in this supplemental declaration was adequate. See Schrecker
v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 349 F.3d 657, 663-65 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (holding that agency
that relied on institutional knowledge of life status, searched the Social Security
Death Index with individuals' social security number, and applied a similar 100-year
rule adequately attempted to verify whether individuals were still living)., Finally,
Talbot argues that even if the threshold requirements for Exemption 6 are met, the
balance of privacy interests and public interests favors disclosure here. Pl.'s
Cross-MSJ at 25-26; see Multi Ag Media, 515 F.3d at 1228 (the second step for determining
the applicability of Exemption 6 is a balancing of the privacy and public interests).
The Court disagrees. With respect to Wyatt's children, the disclosure of information
regarding "private citizens" which " 'reveals little or nothing about an agency's
own conduct' does not serve a relevant public interest under FOIA." Consumers'
Checkbook Ctr. for the Study of Servs. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.,
554 F.3d 1046, 1051 (D.C. Cir. 2009). The names, places of birth, and dates of birth
of Wyatt's then-minor children-which is what the Department redacted, Decl. of
Johnathan M. Rolbin ¶¶ 9, 11-sheds little if any light on the Department's own
conduct. The privacy interests of Wyatt's children in their personal biographical
information thus outweigh whatever public interest might exist in the disclosure
of the information., This leaves the redacted names and signatures of State Department
employees who were involved in processing Wyatt's passports. See id. ¶¶ 10-12.
The question is whether the "incremental value of the specific information being
withheld"-the employees' names and signatures-would outweigh the employees' privacy
interests. See Schrecker, 349 F.3d at 661. It would not. Mr. Rolbin points to several
legitimate concerns the employees might have about the disclosure of their names,
including the possibility of harassment and threats. Decl. of Johnathan M. Rolbin
¶¶ 10-12. These concerns exist even if the particular passport application decisions
here are favorable: the release of the names and signatures provides a possible
target for other members of the public who have received unfavorable decisions.
While these concerns strike the Court as somewhat attenuated, Talbot points to little
value that would be gained by knowing the specific civil servants involved in the
processing of the passports beyond what was already disclosed by the released redacted
records. The Court therefore concludes that the public interest here does not outweigh
the privacy interest of the employees. The Department's redactions under Exemption
6 were proper., Here, Mr. Rolbin attests that the Department searched its case tracking
system and found no evidence that the April 2016 request was received. Decl. of
Johnathan M. Rolbin ¶¶ 13-15. The Department also checked the case file for Talbot's
May 2013 FOIA request and consulted the paralegal who handled that request, and
similarly found no indication that the April 2016 request was received. Id. ¶ 16.
In turn, Talbot submits a responsive declaration from his attorney, Dan L. Hardway,
attesting that he sent a FOIA request to the Department on April 16, 2016. Decl.
of Dan L. Hardway ¶ 4. But as multiple judges in this District have recognized,
the mere fact that a plaintiff alleges a request was sent does not indicate the
request was received . See, e.g., Kanaya, 284 F.Supp.3d at 2-3 ; Banks v. Lappin,
539 F.Supp.2d 228, 235 (D.D.C. 2008). Mr. Hardway attaches to his declaration U.S.
Postal Service tracking information he claims is for the FOIA request that was sent,
but this information does not indicate the address or recipient of the request.
See Decl. of Dan L. Hardway Ex. 5. Moreover, the State Department notes that the
package was shown delivered in Washington, D.C., but FOIA requests to the Department
are to be sent to Sterling, Virginia. Defs.' Reply at 18; see also 22 C.F.R. §
171.4(a)(1) (directing that requests for passport records should be sent to a post
office box in Sterling, Virginia). The Court finds that Talbot has failed to contradict
the State Department's attestation that it never received his April 2016 request.
See, e.g., Ning Ye v. Holder, 624 F.Supp.2d 121, 124 (D.D.C. 2009) (plaintiff's
attestation that he mailed FOIA request and submission of tracking information that
did not show the recipient's name or address failed to overcome agency declaration
that it had no record of receiving plaintiff's request). Summary judgment is therefore
appropriate for the State Department as to Talbot's claims regarding the April
2016 request., In challenging the CIA's search and withholdings, Talbot contends
that the agency: (1) performed an inadequate search; (2) erroneously concluded that
its operational files were exempt from disclosure; (3) produced an inadequate Vaughn
index; and (4) improperly withheld responsive documents under Exemptions 1, 3, and
6. The Court will grant the CIA summary judgment on each aspect of its search and
production except for its failure to search its operational files. As to that issue,
the Court concludes that a subset of potentially responsive records contained in
operational files were not categorically exempt and the CIA must either search its
operational files for those records or explain why no such responsive records would
be found there., Beginning with the adequacy of the CIA's search for records, Antoinette
B. Shiner, the Information Review Officer at the CIA's Litigation Information Review
Office, submitted a declaration on behalf of the agency outlining its search for
records. According to Ms. Shiner, the CIA determined that the Official Personnel
File ("OPF") for Harvey and Wyatt were likely to contain any responsive records,
since such files "contain[ ], among other things, work-related travel records (TDY
records) and records pertaining to the assignment *368and reassignment of officers
throughout their career at the CIA." Decl. of Antoinette B. Shiner ¶¶ 21, 23. CIA
personnel conducted a search for Wyatt's and Harvey's personnel files-a supplemental
declaration from Ms. Shiner explains this was done by using each agent's name and
Agency Identification Number, a unique identifier provided to each CIA employee
during their employment. Suppl. Decl. of Antoinette B. Shiner ¶¶ 7-8. While Harvey's
file was located and processed, the CIA was unable to locate Wyatt's file. Decl.
of Antoinette B. Shiner ¶¶ 22, 23. The search indicated that Wyatt's archived file
was requested by staff from the Office of Human Resources, was never returned to
the records center, and could not be located by the Office of Human Resources in
its own files after two searches. Id. ¶ 22; see also Suppl. Decl. of Antoinette
B. Shiner ¶ 7 (describing additional search for Wyatt's file)., Aside from a challenge
to the CIA's failure to search operational files, which the Court will address
separately below, Talbot primarily contends that the CIA's search was inadequate
because it overlooked indications that responsive records could be found in other
locations. Pl.'s Cross-MSJ at 33-34. He points to specific documents suggesting
an assortment of other offices-such as the agency's Office of Personnel Security-that
might have other responsive records. But the CIA is obligated to search where records
are most likely to be housed today . As Ms. Shiner explains, in the fifty plus years
that have passed since the operative dates of Talbot's request, the CIA has "undergone
numerous internal reorganizations" involving "the creation of new divisions and
components and the closure or merging of other divisions and components, as well
as a corresponding reshuffling of responsibilities among the various divisions within
CIA." Suppl. Decl. of Antoinette B. Shiner ¶ 10. Some of the divisions that might
have housed records in the 1950s and 1960s no longer do so or may even no longer
exist. Id. Moreover, Ms. Shiner has explained that given the age of the records,
any existing records would not be digitized. Id. These are adequate explanations
for why the agency concluded that the hard copies of Harvey's and Wyatt's personnel
files were the most likely current repository for any existing responsive records.
See Decl. of Antoinette B. Shiner ¶¶ 21, 23; Suppl. Decl. of Antoinette B. Shiner
¶ 5., Talbot also argues the search was inadequate because the CIA was unable to
find the missing Wyatt personnel file and failed to detail the steps it took to
locate it. Pl.'s Reply Defs.' Opp'n ("Pl.'s Reply") at 8. However, the declarations
provided by Ms. Shiner attest that the CIA division that houses the personnel files
contacted the Office of Human Resources, which conducted a search for Wyatt's personnel
file in December 2015 and again in June 2017. Decl. of Antoinette B. Shiner ¶ 22;
Suppl. Decl. of Antoinette B. Shiner ¶ 7. Human Resources searched its own files
and had the individual who requested Wyatt's file search as well. Suppl. Decl.
of Antoinette B. Shiner ¶ 7. Neither Human Resources nor the requestor nor the division
that houses the personnel files could locate Wyatt's file-and given its age, no
digitization of the file exists. Id.; Decl. of Antoinette B. Shiner ¶ 22. Shiner's
declarations sufficiently detail the steps taken to find Wyatt's missing file and
are afforded a presumption of good faith. See, e.g., SafeCard Servs., 926 F.2d at
1200. Talbot offers no basis to discredit the declarations. The Court therefore
concludes that the CIA conducted a reasonable search for Wyatt's file notwithstanding
its failure to locate it. In sum, setting aside the CIA's failure to search operational
files, to which the Court will now turn, the Court concludes *369that the CIA conducted
an adequate search for responsive records., Talbot also argues the CIA's search
was inadequate because the agency did not look for any responsive records within
its operational files. Pl.'s Cross-MSJ at 29-31. The CIA responds that operational
files-and thus any responsive records contained therein-are categorically exempt
from FOIA under the CIA Information Act, 50 U.S.C. § 3141. Defs.' Reply at 5. That
statute defines "operational files" as files that "document the conduct of foreign
intelligence or counterintelligence operations or intelligence or security liaison
arrangements or information exchanges with foreign governments or their intelligence
or security services," 50 U.S.C. § 3141(b)(1), and generally exempts them from disclosure
under FOIA, id. § 3141(a) ; see also Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108, 1116 (D.C. Cir.
2007). There is an exception, however: the statute goes on to provide that operational
files may still be searched for responsive records that are "the specific subject
matter of an investigation by the congressional intelligence committees" or other
specifically enumerated investigative offices conducted into "any impropriety, or
violation of law, Executive order, or Presidential directive, in the conduct of
an intelligence activity." 50 U.S.C. § 3141(c)(3).2, Given the Church Committee's
interest in Harvey, it seems clear that it would have considered records reflecting
his TDY travel and station or base assignments (both subjects of Talbot's request,
see Compl. Ex. 6) with respect to the specific operations at issue central to its
investigation. Indeed, the Committee asked Harvey about his travel at the hearing,
Hearing Before the S. Select Comm. to Study Gov't Operations with Respect to Intelligence
Activities , 94th Cong. 63:11-13, 66:11-13 (1976) (testimony of William K. Harvey),
and discussed trips he took for meetings in the interim report it released, Alleged
Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders , S. Rep. No. 94-465, at 83-84 (1975).
Thus, the second requirement of the D.C. Circuit's three-part test is also met.
The Court therefore concludes that a specific, narrow subset of the possible requested
records in operational files-those that would relate to Operation Mongoose or the
Castro assassination plots, during the time period of November 1961 to June 1963-fall
within the exception in 50 U.S.C. § 3141(c) and are not categorically exempt from
FOIA., The Shiner Declarations suggest that the CIA has not considered whether any
*371responsive records would even be found in the operational files discussed above
because it believed all records in operational files were exempt wholesale. See,
e.g., Decl. of Antoinette B. Shiner ¶ 24 ("The decision to task HR and focus the
search on Harvey and Wyatt's OPFs was informed by CIA's knowledge of specific
databases and/or files-other than operational files of the CIA which are exempt
from the search, review, publication, and disclosure requirements of the FOIA ...");
Suppl. Decl. of Antoinette B. Shiner ¶ 8 ("Again, based on the CIA's knowledge
of specific databases and/or files, excluding exempt operational files, the CIA
determined that the OPF files were the most likely repository of the information
Plaintiff sought."). Consequently, the Court will require the CIA to either search
the operational files for the specific universe of non-exempt records-those responsive
records related to Operation Mongoose or the Castro assassination during the period
of November 1961 to June 1963-or provide an explanation for why it need not do so
to perform an adequate search.4, Next, Talbot challenges the sufficiency of the
CIA's Vaughn index. Pl.'s Cross-MSJ at 34-35; see Decl. of Antoinette B. Shiner
Ex. L (Vaughn index). In analyzing a Vaughn index's sufficiency, the Court's "focus
is on the functions served by the Vaughn index: to organize the withheld documents
in a way that facilitates litigant challenges and court review of the agency's
withholdings." Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F.3d 141, 148 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
Thus, the Vaughn index must "adequately describe each withheld document or deletion
from a released document" and must "state the exemption claimed for each deletion
or withheld document, and explain why the exemption is relevant." People for the
Am. Way Found. v. Nat'l Park Serv., 503 F.Supp.2d 284, 294 (D.D.C. 2007) (citation
omitted). An agency is allowed to use a Vaughn index in conjunction with agency
declarations that more fully detail the basis for the claimed exemptions. Judicial
Watch, 449 F.3d at 148., Here, the Vaughn index includes an entry for every withheld
or redacted document, and each entry provides the nature of the document (e.g. ,
"[m]emorandum regarding reimbursement of expenses" or "[p]ayroll change notice");
the exemption(s) claimed; and a description of the type of information redacted,
either by listing the specific information withheld (e.g. , "names" or "identifying
information") or referencing a category of information described in the Shiner Declarations
(e.g. , "cover" or "coding information"). The Shiner Declarations, in turn, explain
why these specific categories of information meet the claimed exemption's requirements
for withholding. See Decl. of Antoinette B. Shiner ¶¶ 29-33. Finally, the Court
is mindful that many of the redactions involved here relate to intelligence sources
and methods, and requiring more thorough explanations-such as a description of which
sources and methods are being protected, see Pl.'s Cross-MSJ at 39 (faulting the
CIA for "provid[ing] no information in regard to what sources and methods are sought
to be protected")-could risk incurring the harm that the FOIA exemptions *372are
designed to avoid. For all these reasons, the Court finds that the CIA's Vaughn
index is sufficient to fulfill its purposes.