Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 1 of 50

;-;=:::===-=-=--==========~

USDC SD~Y:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTIUCT OF NEW YORK

DOCUMENT
ELECTRONJCALLY FILED

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, ct al.,

I I

DOC#:

1fJ~l5

DATEFILED;
Plaintiffs,
;

12 Civ. 794 (C~

-against-

i

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.,
Defendant~.

I
I

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RULING ON THE
!
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY THE CENTRAL
I
INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL

I
i

. McMahon, J.:

I

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, .in its opinion datf d
June 23, 2014, rejected the use by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the
Department of Defense (DoD) (collectively, "the Agencies") of so·called Glomar

!

responses 1 and No Name·No Number responses to the requesc by Plaintiff America~

Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for Vaughn Indices relating to the ACLU's FOIA rcC!i\iest

I

as dii·cctcd to the Agencies. The Cil'cuit directed the Agencies to provjde this court 't'ith
I

Vaughn Indices (the Indices) for review. The Agencies did so, p1oviding both classi~ed
(court's eyes only) and non-cfassified ve1·sions of the Indices. The Agencies also mohd
I
for summary judgment dismissing the ACLU's complaint insofar as it sought docuu1ents ·

.

.

l

A Glomar responso in FOlA parlance refers to an agency's refusal lo "confil'm or deny" exist(nce of
records where to an~wer the FOlA inquiry would cause harm cognizable under FOIA exception. S U.S.C.A
§ 552.
1

l

i

TOPSECRETL-~~~~

_ _ _ _ =1NOFORN

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 50

TOP SECRET/

listed on those Indices. The ACLU has responded to the motions for sttnunary judgiµent
and has withdrawn its request for certain documents on the Indices.
The Second Circuit also directed this court to review and inspect certain "ot~er
legal memoranda prepared by" the Office of Legal Counsel of the Depa11mcnt of Ju~tice,
·i

I

as well as other entries that appear on OLC's classified Vaughn Index, in view of.i~
'

I

I

determination that the Goverrunent had waived FOIA exemptions with respect co cehain
!

materials. OLC has also moved for summary judgment dismissing the ACLU's complaint

.I

insofar as it sought documents listed on those Indices, and the ACLU has respondedr
This opinion disposes of all remaining aspects of the mandate.~

I.

i

Material Considered When Deciding These Motions
In keeping with the requirements in this Circuit, the Agencies supponed their

motions for summary judgment with declarations. Wilner v. NSA, 592 F. 3d 60, 68 (2.d
Cir. 2009). I have and had no quarrel with this. However, the Agencies' failure to p~pvide

'

the court with a single summary document, or to properly cross-reference argumcntS
relating to documents listed on the Indices on a document-by-document basis (as I

h~d
i

previously requested), made review of the Indices virtually impossible -- or, at least,;

I

overly time consuming.
Accordingly, on JanuaiY 7, 2015, I issued lfn order direccing the CIA and Dop to
,.
present the informacion in support of their argument that the listed documents were j
'

exempt from FOIA disclosure in a different fonnat- one that explained, on a docu~ent.

by-document basis, the reasons why each claimed FOIA e){emption applied to that

1I

i
I

>In a wri,wn dc:cision rendered on Sepkmbcr 30, 2014, the Court disposed of one item in che m1mda(e 11em Threc--in a separnte ruling that is presently on appc11l.
\

2

.

I

TOP

SECRET~L----------- =1NOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 3 of 50

TOP SECRE"f

--i,...... --- ...

'------~-~
l
I

i

I

document. The Government protested that it had to rely on evidentiaiy declarationslin
1

order to comply wilh Wilner.

I did not mean to suggest by my order that the declarations previously filed

I
i~

support of the motions for summary judgment should not have been filed or were ndt to

.
be considered part of the record on the motions. They are part of the. record, and I

!i

reviewed them comprehensively pdor to issuing the iaauary 7 order. The problem Jas in
.

I

I

trying to conelate information in the declarations with the documents listed on the iI

· 1

Indices. The d0<;ument that I directed to be filed in the January 7 Order was intende4 to
supplement and summarize the evidentiary material already presented to the court --!not
to replace it. The Government's concern about providing the court with a summary :I
1

i

document is, therefore, misplaced.

!
I

On January 20, 2015, the CIA and DoD filed a document that complies withjmy

January 7, 2015 order - one that, pn a document by document basis, explains the baiis on
which the. Agencie$ L·esisl disclosure of the indexed documents.
i

On or about February 24, 2015, my senior law clerk contacted the Govemm1nt

and asked that it prepare an identically-formatted summary document relating to the!
remaining items on the OLC Vaughn Index. The Goverrunent provided such a document,·
albeit not until April 23, 2015.
In this opinion I will first address the OLC's comprehensive motion fOl' suminary

judgment - which addresses not only its own concerns but those of the CIA and Do~
with ·respect to documents of concern to all tlu·ee Agencies. It will then take up the

i

separate motions of the CIA and DoD. \Prior to deciding any of the motions, I will 'ssue
a few overarching 1ulings applicable to all documents listed on all three Indices.

3

TOP

SECRET~'------ _ _ _ _ _ _ yoroR'1

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 4 of 50

~

TOP SECRET

Ii
I

I

Standards for Smnm1u-y Judgment

II.

i
The applicable standards for summary judgment on a motion resisting FOIAI
'

I

I

disclosure have not changed since this court issued its original opinion in Ne"'" Yorki

Times on January 3, 2013. They are incorporated herein by reference.
I emphasize the following aspect of the court's review-- summary judgment in
favor of the agency is appropriate where:
the affidavits 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. Ultimately, an
agency's justification for invoking a FOIA exemption is sufficient if it
appears logical or plausible,

.

I

Wilner, 592 F. 3d at 73. In the national security context, agency declarations are entitled
I
to substantial deference. CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159, 179 (1985).

Fu11hermore, with respect to l'esponses from the CIA, one of the Agencies h~re at
issue, in camera review of documents is discouraged, because 50 U.S.C. § (f) (2) di,ects
that "the comt shall, to the fullest extent practicable, determine issues of fact based qn

sworn written submissions of the parties." I have to the fullest extent practicable

!
!

i

i

determined
I
. issucs-offact on the basis of the CIA's sworn wrinen submissions; howqvcr,
.
have, as will be seen, asked the CIA to produce a few documents for in camera
inspection.

Ill.

Rulings Applicable to AU Documents on All Indices
The following rulings are applicable to all documents Iisted on all three

indi~es.
I

4

TOP SECRET/,___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~NOFORN

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 5 of 50

TOPSEGRETL
"-

.

----~

A. Classification
) All documents appearing on all three Vaughan Indices that are identified as
I

classified are currently and properly classified, as attested by the various declaration~ o_f
I

Sinclair M. Harris (DoD), John E. Bies (OLC) and Martha M. Lutz (CIA). No evid~nce
suggests the contrary. In the absence of evidence tending to show waiver, there is,

I

frankly; very little the court can do to avoid the (b) (I) exemption.
B. Officiql Acknowledgement

/

The ACLU asserts that otherwise applicable FOIA exemptions have been

w~ived.
;

with regard to all documents on the three Vaughn Indices (classified or not) because1the
matters discussed the(ein have been "officially ack~owledged" by relevant Govemrnent
!

officials
All parties agree (and if they did not, the Second Cit·cuit has held in this verY,
case) that voluntary disclosure by the Government of all or part of a document may
an otherwise valid FOlA exemption. New York Times, 756 F. 3d at 114. The

~aive

"offici~l
I

acknowledgement doctrine" applies in the context of all three exemptions asserted b;,' the
;

agencies in this case: Exemptions 1, 3 and 5. Wilson v. CIA, 586 F. 3d 171, 186 (2d
2009); New York Times, 756 F. 3d at 114.

rir.
l
I

i

I deeply regret that the Court of Appeals was not more definitive in its

discu~sion
I

i

of how closely an official acknowledgement had to track information contained in a:

II

document that would otherwise be exempt from disclosure. Wilson- described as

"t~e
' :

law of this Circuit" by the panel in New York Times - holds that the doctrine appliesj
.

.

!

where the withheld information is "as specific as the information previously

release~"
II

and "matches the information previously disclosed." In New York Times, the Circuit

5 .

TOP

SECRET/[L...--------~---:=JNOFORH

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 6 of 50
---

TOP SECRET

- -

_______________ ______
_:_

---i.. 1r'\l'-:rmu

c____----~

suggested that an "overly stringent" application of Wilson "may not be wan-anted" diew

York Times, 756 F. 3d at L20, n.19), but it did not say that a "stringent" application •\was
oot warranted." This court generally finds it prudent to apply Second Circuit precedent
rather stringently, especially as I am in no position to overturn "the law of this Cil'cu)t."
What the Second Circuit did not do in New York Times was explain where the line
between "stringent" and "overly stringent" could be found. I will do my best to take

.

cues from what the Court of Appeals did in on the fo-sr appeal in this case.

i

I do not read Wilson as requiring that the withheld information correspond
.

verbatim to information previously released, or that the prior release have been

~y

I
i
i

!

i
I
mad~

by

i

the very official whose statement appears
. in the withheld document, or by an officiai~ in
the agency where the discloser works, or even by an official in the branch of Govem{nent
;

where the discloser works. The Government is the Government; and if, for example,ithe

:
I

Attorney General makes a factual assertion about the Defense
Depa1tme11t, then that! fact
.
has been "officially acknowledged" by the Government for purposes of the Wilson r(1lc but only to the extent of the specificity of the public statement.
The exception to what I just wrote is that the "law will not infer official disclpsure
!

of information classified by the CIA from ... release of information by anothel' agencz, or
i

even by Congress_" Wilson, 586 F. 3d at 186-87_ That is the "law of this Circuit." I \
recognize that the panel in this very case included public statements by members of '.

Congress about the CJA's role in drone strikes as some evidence of official
I

a.cknowledgement of that fact. However, the principal "official acknowledger," according
to the Court of Appeals, was the Director of the CIA. The statements of Senator Fei~stein
and Congressman Rogers about the CIA's role in the use of drones appear to have b~en
6

TOP

SECRET/~_----_--____- .... ~--~==---~ ---- ___ =1NOFORtf-

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 7 of 50

TOP SECRET

--i,... '"'r-r'\ruu

'--------~

entirely confirmatory of Director Pannetta's disclosures. Jndeed, the Circuit's very p:Oinr
I

I

was that if the Chairmen of the Senate and House Select Conunittees on Tntelligence! felt

I

free to discuss a fact publicly, it meant that the fact was no secret- even a1 the CIA.! I do
.

t

not read the Circuit's reference to these public statements as ove1tuming the quoted

!i

ruling in Wilson concerning ~ho can and cannot officially disclose information that ~as

.!

been classified by the CIA.
The ACLU takes the position that official acknowledgement of a fact

consti~tes

waiver with respect to the ~ny infonnation that is "similar" to the information disclo~ed.
The ACLU's position is overbro.id; "similar" is not a synonym for "matching." Certtinly,
.

if what the ACLU means is that official ac~owlcdgement of a pa11icular fact (for

l
I

example, the CIA's operational involvement in the drone strike that killed Aulaqi) w'aives
I.
FOIA exemptions for all details about the CIA's operational involvement in the
.

Aul~qi
'

mission, it goes too far. Nothing in the Second Circuit's opinion in New York Times ?an

be read to suggest that acknowledgement of the CIA's "operational role" in the Aulaqi
'

killing- including its statement that two senior members of Congress "publicly disc,)ssed
I

CIA 's role in targeted killings by drone strikes" -- mandates disclosure of such detai!ts
as
I

l
tho names of any CIA persoru1el who were involved, or what exactly each of them df; or
where they wece located when they did it; or what equipment ·was used, or who (if '..
!
l

anyone) in Yemen or elsewhere offered assistance. All the Second Circuit said was l~at.
the "idencity of rhe agency, in addition to DOD, that had an operational role in the drone
strike that killed Aulaqi" had been officially acknowledged-:-- and, more generally, "I~ is
!

l

no secret that the CIA has a role in the use of drones." N~w York Ttmes, 765 F.3d at 19.
Acknowledgement of operational involvernenr. in other words, does not eviscerate
7

th~

I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 8 of 50

_ _ _ _ -=:)NOFORN

TOP SECRET

privilege for operational details. I very much doubt that the Court of Appeals meant ifor
I

this comt to disregard Wilson or to conclude that disclosure of a specific fact entailed
I

i

waiver of exemption for all information about the subject to which that fact pertain~.
!

Orhcr:wise, it would not have redacted significant portions of the OLC-DOD .
:

Memorandum - a document that indisputably qualifies as "legal analysis" - due to t~e
mention of facts relating to intelligence gatherine activities. If I am inconect, the Ci)·cuit
I

will have to be much more explicit in its direction to this lower court.

I
I
'

That said, I take up the ACLU's argument. Plaintiff takes the position that th~
;

following info1mation has been "officially acknowledged" by Govemment, so that a~y
"matching" information contained i~ the documents identified i11 the Vaughn Jndice~
'

must be disclosed:
. 1. The fact that the Government uses drones to carry out targeted killings
overseas;

I
I

2. The fact that both DOD and CIA have an intelligence interest in the use tjf
drones to carry out targeted killings;
·
I

3. The fact thot both DOD and the CIA have an operational role in conductij1g
targeted killings;
·
4. Information about the legal basis (constitutional, statutory, common law,:

international law and treaty law) for engaging in the targotcd killings abr<?ad,
including specifically the targeted killing of a U.S, national.
·

5. The fact that the Government carried O\lt the targeted killing of Aulaqi; ·
6. At least some information about why it killed Aulaqi: his leadership role !n alQaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, including as an operational planner, recruiter
and money-raiser; his role in the failed attempt to bomb the Northwest
Airlines jetliner on December 2009 (the Detroit bombing attempt)~ and his
role in planning other attacks (which never took place), including specifi4a11y
attacks on two US-bound cargo planes jn October 201 O;
·
7. The fact that the Government believed that Samir Khan was involved inj;had.

8

TOP SEGRE~===========~----_·=-----------_-··_- _JNOFORN

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 9 of 50

TOP

SECRET~'----------·=:JtNeFeRN-

The ACLU suppmts its argument with fourteen exhibits - White Papers,
speeches, news articles that quote Government sources, Congres·sional Committee
hearing transcripts - all of which are in the public domain, and all of which
unequivocally support exactly what the ACLU asserts about the seven specific facts ;listed
above.
As to six of these seven facts (all but #6) -- as well as the fact that Aulaqi waf
killed in Yemen, which the Second Circuit held to have been officially
.

acknowledge~ -'

I have no difficulty holding that they have been officially acknowledged by the Unittd
States Government. Therefore, to the extent that these specific facts appear in

I

documents on the agencies' V11ughn Indices and ci\n be segregated t'rom othe1·,
.

!i

.

I

properly exempt infor1Uation, those portions of all documents on the OLC, CI,Ai and
DoD Vaughn Indices 1nust be disclosed.
'

Then we turn to Listed Fact #6, the reasons why Aulaqi was selected for targpting

by his own government. Every item listed in that paragraph-his leadership role in i,tlQaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, including as an operatio11al planner, recruiter and
.
.

!.

money-raiser; his role in the failed attempt to bomb the Northwest Airlines jetliner o~
i

December 2009 (the Detroit bombing attempt); and his role in planning other auack~ that

.

I

never took place, including specifically attacks on two US-bound cargo planes in Oc~ober
!
.

I

2010-is disclosed by an executive branch official in one or more of the exhibits to \he
i

Colin Wicker Affirmation. These disclosures appear in Wicker Ex. 7 (Jake Tapper's!June
27, 20 IO Interview with Leon Panetta, see page S of 15), Wicker Ex. 8 (U.S.,

Depart~ent
I

of Treasury Press Release dared July 1~. 2010), Wicker Ex. 9 (letter, Actomey Gene~al
.

i
'

9

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 10 of 50

-------- ----·-··- -·-·-TOP SECRET

.-- ==1NOFORN
i'

!

Holder to The Hon. Patrick Leahy, dated May 22, 2013, at 3-4of16); Wicker Ex.
(Transcript

10

ofH~aring Before the Committee on Homeland Security. of the House at~'

Representatives, Feb. 9, 2011, at 25 of 35); Wicker Ex. 11 (Remarks by the Presidenf at
the "Change of Office" Ceremony for the Cl;airman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

Sep~. 30,

.

I

2011); and Wicker Ex. 12 (Government's Sentencing Memorandum in United State.~of
i

America v. Umar FaroukAbdulmutallab, No. IO CR 20005, United States District C~urt,
!

i

Eascern District of Michigan, at 3).

I
I

All but one of those documents was created before this court issued its originrl

ruling; the one created after -- Attorney General Holder's Letter to Senator Leahy -- was

.

I

virtually contempo1aneous with the post-opinion documents that the Second Circ~itj

considered and found dispositive when it held that there had been waiver with respe J to
the legal analysis in the OLC-DOD Memorandum..

If I were writing on a ~le~n slate, I would rule that theL

-----~---'

have been "officially acknowledged," and thaf

L--------------'
FOIA protection is accordingly waivedj

I beli:evc
· - - - - - - ------"

it is for the Circuit to decide in the first instance c___ _ _ _ __

I

\
~----~,

waive FOIA prntection for documents discussing those!

["he

~----'

Court of Appeals now has the benefit of my view on the matter.
As to Listed Fact #7: the ACLU mischaracterizes what has been oftfoially

i
acknowledged - not that the Government "believed" Kha.rl was involved in jihad, bu~ that

10

\
;

'

l
TOP SECRET/'L_-------~------~ -=:)NOFORN

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 11 of 50
·----·- ----------'--

he was under invescigacion by the FBI because he blogged about jihad. The FBI's fil¢s on
Khan (heavily redacted) were publicly released after his death, pursuant to a FOIA '
request. They revealed the fact that he had been undel' investigation by that_ agency
(which is not a defendan_t in this case) since 2006, and that the FBI and Justice
Deprutment were tt11ing to build a terrorism case against him. Nothing in the FBI fil~s. as
•

reported in the article attached as Wicker Ex, I~. mentions the interest of any other :
agency in Khan. 1 thus conclude that the Goverrummt has "officially acknowledged" ~hat
the FBI was investigating Khan's involvement in te1To1ism/jihad - nothing more. As1so
modified, Listed Fact 7 is deemed "officially acknowledged."
All of the document-by-document rulings I .ftm making are informed by ~l1is
ruling about official acknowledgement. Thus, 1my reference to Listed Facts 1-5 a,nd
7 (as modified), as well as to the fact that Aulaqi was killed in Yemen, in any
t

document on each agency's Vaughn Index must be disclosed to plaintiffs, to the.
extent that it is rcasonnbly segregable. All rulings on indMdual documents arc
subject to this ruling, except for documents that the court has examined in ct1mer<i.

As to those documents, I myself have applied this r·.uJlng during my i11 camera
· review, so there. is no need for OLC, CIA ol" DOD to review these documc11ts In
order to 1\Sccrtain whether segregable references to acknowledged facts exist.
C.

Segrega b;Jity

~

.

!
I
,

.

i

The CIA asserts that it has conducted a line·by line review of all the documeJs on

irs Vaughn Index, and has concluded that no reasonably segregable, non-exempt p011\ons
of the document could be released without comprnmising those po1tions of the docu~ent
chat a1'e exempt from disclosure. Lutz, Third Classified Declaration, 1[ 36. The few cCIA

i

11

i

I

TOP SECRET

\_

______

___

=rNOFOR~.

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 12 of 50

--~

TOP SECRETr.___
_ _ __

documents ther I am directing be produced for in camera review are documents as

t6

w~ich it seems possible, based on the limited info1mation presently known to me, th~t
portions of those documents might be segregable.
In addition, the CIA will have to conduct a new seg1·egability review, in light of
i

the court's conclusion that certain Listed Factors have been officially acknowledged! by
!

relevant o1licials. I am not prepared to accept anything other than a document-by-

i
i

document representation that (I) the document contains no "officially acknowledge1"
information; or (2) while it contains "officially acknowledged" information, that

. infmmation caonot ,.,,onably

be segregated !tom other information tbat has not b+

"officially acknowledged" and so remains exempt from FOIA disclosure. To the extent
.

!

that "of~cially acknowledged" infoimation can reasonably be segregat~d, the CIA should
propose appropriate redactions to the court The CIA has 30 days from the date on ;
which this decision is released for security review (which is to say, the date at the e~d of
iI

this decision) to complete that review for any documents _not otherwise ordered p1·041ced,
.

!
'

and to provide the necessary certifications.
For its pa1t, DoD summarily dismisses the notion that it could reasonably

!

segrngate any non-exempt information from the documents it has withheld. se·cond
Classified Declaration of Sindair M. Harris.

'I! 31.

Jn view of the court's ruling with

respect to what has been "officially acknowledged," DoD also needs to conduct a
segregability review; it is ordered to complete that review within 30 days of the date 1this

i
decision is released to the Government for secul'ity Ieview (not the date when a redayted
version of this decision is released publicly). It, too, must provide the court, on a
document-by-document basis, with a representation that (1) the ~ocument contains

nb

12
I

TOP SECRET/

~-···--------- =:=JNOFORN

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 13 of 50

TOP SEGRET'1L___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

·JeFeRN-

officially acknowledged information; or (2) while it contains officially acknowledg~d
information, that information cannot reasonably

~e segregated from other informati&n

that has not been officially acknowledged and so remains exempt from FOIA

disclo~~re.

To the extent that officially acknowledged information can reasonably be segregatet
DOD should p1·opose appropriate redactions to the coul't. As is the case with the CI)A.., the
cou11 will identify.• at the end of this opinion,· a limited number of documents that DOD
must produce for in camera review without regard to its recertification of segregabi~ity.

Finally, OLC represents that the withheld documents have been reviewed and that

i

there is "no reasonably segregable, non-exempt information (that] can be pnn•ided

i'
!;

beyond the unredacted portions already provided to Plaintiffs from Documents 4, 5,1a11d
9." Third Classified Declaration 9f John E. Bies,~ I 06. OLC ml;}sl produce a muc~
'

larger number of documents for in came1·a inspection
that the other agencie~; .as to ~e
.
I
I

rest of the documents on its Vaughn Index, it must also undertake the above-dcscribfd
exercise and provide the court, within 30 days, with a document-by-document

I!

certification of non-segregability or ·with proposed redactions.

IV.

Analysis of the Documents Requests by the ACLU
I know of no way to get through this mass of material except doct)ment by

document as listed on each Agency's Vaughn Index - the method endors~d by the
'Second Circuit in New York Times, 756 F.3d at 124.

A. Documents Appearing on the OLC Vaughn Index
There i.s a pi-elirninary issue to discuss before diving into the OLC Vaughn

I~dex

on a document-by-document basis.
In New York Times, the Second Circuit issued the following ruling:
13 .
'I

TOP SECRET/L---------

-~ =1NOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 14 of 50

TOP SECRETL-.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~-

No reason appeais why the number, title, or desciiption of the
remaining listed documents needs to be kept secret Listing number
5 is the OLC-DOD Memorandum; listing numbers 7-9, 50, 250,
262-65 and 269-1.l describe documents and attomey notes
concerning legal advice; listing numbers 57-68, 70, 71, 73-79, 83,
88-91, 93, 95-100, 102, 105, 110, I 13, 116-22 and 144-45 are
described as including factual information concerning Aulaqi,
listing numbers 123-30 lll."C described as Uncla~sified open sotn·cc
materials; listing numbers 131-43 and 148-237 arc described as
d1·afts of the OLC-DOD Memorandum; listing numbers 238-43 are
described as drafts of other documents; listing numbers 146-47 are
described as drafts of Document 86A, a listing that docs not appear
on the OLC'd Vaughan index; and listing numbers 252-54 are
described as including [redacted].

.

j
i

I
\
:
\.

i
,
:

i

I
1

I
i
i

Some, perhaps all, of the infonnntion in many of these documents I
might be protected as classified intelligence information or
predecisional. If the plaintiffs challenge the applicability of a cited
exemption, the District Court, after in camera inspection, will be
able to determine which of these documents need to be withheld ;
and which portions of these documents need to be redacted as
•
i,
subject co one or more exemptions that have no been waived.
;

i

I read this as a directive ordering this coutt to conduct an in camera review of any a~d all
.

I
I

of the listed documents- well over half of the documents appearing on OLC's origi~al
I

I

. Vaughn Index.

i
Since New Yotk Times was handed down, the ACLU has withdrawn its requtst for
certain emails and ce11ain other documents (ClassifieQ. Declaration of John E. Bies,

1ir 9-

12), so a number ofThe documents identified by the Second Circuit arc no longer sof ght

andneednotbeproducedforreview: 105, 113, 116, 123-30, 131-43, 148-242, 144-47.
However, as to those document listed by the Second Circuit that it continues to seek; the

ACLU challenges the applicability of any exemptions to any of these documents and
demands that this court engage in the prescribed tn camera inspection.

14

TOP SECRETC'---------

--~
I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 15 of 50

TOP SECRET

---i.......... ,... ........

~----~

In its second (and infinitely more detailed) submission in response to the mdtion
for summary judgment, OLC offers an extended rationale for why each of these
·documents should not be disclosed - and should not even be subject to in camera
inspection. To lak~ one exampler ____ --·--- ----------- ------------

The
Court of Appe!"ls ordered all references to

~------------------'redacted from the publicly-available version of

New York Times. When the Court of Appeals. included these ei~ht documents on

1

th~ list

of documents to bo reviewed in camera, it did not know thaC - - - - - - - - "

Dbccause the OLC's original Vaughn Index was so cryptic that this important detail
was omined. Ir apparently did not occur to the Government to ask the Circuit to eli~inate
I

these documents from the list of doc\lments that it ordered this' court to review in camera.

However, the Government now argues, at great length and to me, that none of these
documents need be produced (even for in camera review), because if only the Sccorfd
CiL·cuit had known

11

liltle more about their subject matter, the panel would never haye
i

included them h1 the list of documents· designated by the Court of Appeals for in camera
I

!

·review by this court.

'
\

I

[wish l could comply with the Government's request- I have no particular

!

interest in. prolonging this exercise. But in view of the mandate rule, I have little cho~ce
!

but to order OLC to produce all of the documents listed in the above-quoted paragra~h
i

that ai:e still sought by chc ACLU fo1· in camera review. OLC has 30 days from the ~ate
I

15
'

TOP SECRETAL..-__.,.----------- =:]NOFORN

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 16 of 50

TOP

SECRETfL----------·~

this decision is submitted for classification review to get those documents to New )'\ork.
'

Prior to producing the documents to the court, OLC must conduct a segregability

re~iew
I

·,

and either propose redactions for any as to which portions can and must be disclose~ in
I

view of the court's 111ling on what has been "officially acknowledged" or certify,

ad a
I

!

document-by-document basis, that reduction is impossible.
Turning now to the individual documents on .the OLC Vaughn Index: OLC ,
grouped those documents into categories.3 Rather than re-sore rhe documents In
numerical order, I, roo, will discuss the documents in their assigned categories. Wh~re
justifications for withholding appJy to all documents in a pa11icular category, they a~·e
;

listed at the beginning of the discussion of the documents in that category.

---- -------

------,-·

~ Some document could fall into more than one category, but OLC placed ~hem into jusc one catcgo~, so as
lo eliminate redundant discussion.

:

16

TOP SECRETf\L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =tNOFORN

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 17 of 50

TOP SECRET.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~

.

~~~

I

~To speed the prepnrntion of this opinion I have cllosen simply co quole verbatim the Government's I

arguments, rather 1han to 1ry to summarize them in my own words. This h;is the adv11ntage of1Jfcsentlng lhc
reviewing court wilh B single docu111enf in which nil Information necessary to a decision is containcd
1

17

i

TOP SECRET.____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =1NOFORN

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 18 of 50

----~-=TOPSECRETI'l__~--~~~~

~NOFORN.

18
I

TOP

_

__:__.__

SECRET/~-~~~~-

:::JN9F9R~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 19 of 50

-------

TOP

SECRET-------~­
- - - - - - - - - - - ~NOFORN

19

TOP SECRETt'i
_:__
_
_
__
_ _ =1NOFORN
__
__
__
_
_
_
_

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 20 of 50

TOP SECRET

[------------·
I
'

.I

I

20

TOP SECRET.'---_

--------

i
=11NOFORN,

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 21 of 50

TOP

SEGRE~'----------~

I

I
I

'1

!
'

21

roPSECRE~~~~~
..,

.

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 22 of 50
· - - - - - - - - - ·-----------------------

TOP

SECRE~'----------- =1NOFORN

Rogers, Chairman of the House Select Commlt:tee on Intelligence, thought they wer~
revealing a secret when they publically discussed CIA's role ln targeted killings by drone
strikes." Id

22

--==~

TOP SECRETL.___ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 23 of 50
·---·-----------

·---== =1NOFORN

TOP SECRET/c__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I

L_

The issue of who should conduct drone strikes became part of public discou~.se

no

I

later than May 2013,6 when President Obama gave a widely-publicized speech at th¢
i

'

National Defense University ("NDU") In that speech, the President was perceived

b,y

press and commentators as suggesting th~t responsibility for drone strikes should re~ide
with the military, not eisewhere. To be fair, the President said nothing of the sort; as\ one
commentator remarked. he simply, "offered som.e clues into the status of the progra1~ •
1

and "opaquely signal(ed}" that these operations should be assumed by the United States
military. See, John BeMet, "White House Quietly Shifts Armed Drone Pmgram,"
.
I

'
I
I

Defense News, May 24, 2013; see also, Patrick Baker, "Pivoting From a War Footifg,
I

I1

6 The ACLU, in ics opposition 10 the Agencies' mo1ion 10 dismiss, submitted exhibits 10 dctnons1r11ie 11\at
POIA exemptions had been waived as ti;> ce1111in issues. None of tho citations discussed in these pagchvas
included in the ACLU's submission.
'

23

TOP SECRET/L--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =1NOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 24 of 50

~OP SECRET/j~--

Obama Acts to Curtail Drones," New

_ _ _ _ =1NOFORN

York Times, May 23, 2013,

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24 /us/politics/pivoting.

,

Bue the press picked up

1n his

clues and signals, and both of these sources specifically mentioned a classified politjy
guidance, recently signed by the President, that included a "drone-program shift," s0 the
CIA could return to its "core mission" of gathering intelligence. Bennet, supra.
The NDU Speech was preceded and followed by extensive comments from

.

members of Congress on the subject ofwh~ should have responsibility for drone
.

II

str~kes.
i
I

The Congressional commentators did not beat aro~nd the bush about the subject of vieir

l
consist~nt iith
I

comments. In particular, Senator John McCain immediately indicated support for
"Obama's decision to shift the program from the CIA to che milita111"

-

his oft-expressed position that "It's not the job of che Central Intelligence Agency [tb
I
I

conduct drone srrikes]. ... It's a militaa·y jobu Bennett, supra; see also Julian

Hact~m
I

and Martin Matishak, "Drone Fight Simmers in Congress," May 2, 2015, The Hill,
hltp//thehill.com/policy/technology /240853. On the other side of the question,

!

Sen~tor

Diane Feinstein, Ghahwoma11 of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, reinfc\irced
her previously-expressed skepticism about whether the military would or could cxe1;cise
I

the same degree of "patience and discretion" that had characterized the CIA 's operalion
of the drone program. Bennett, supra; see also Ken Dilanian, "Debate grows over

proposal for CIA to turn over drones to Pentagon," May 11, 2014,

\

http//www.latim~s.

com/world/middleeast/la-fg-yemen-drones.
The debate over who should have the primary "operational role" in lethal targeted
i.

actions has not abated during the past two years. Even as I work on this opinion - ~o
full years after the NDU speech -- The Hill reports that, "Congress may finally be

i
01I the

24

TOP SECRET.\.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-=_]NOFORN~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 25 of 50

·---------- ---

----

---- --

..

TOPSECRETI'--~~~--~~~~~=:JNOFORN
verge of transferring control of the nation's drone program from CIA to the Pencagdn;"
Hattem/Matishak, supra. Meanwhile, CNN recencly reported that McCain and Ohio!
Governor (and fonrier Senator) John Kasich were insistent that the CIA get our oft~e

I'

.

business of running the targeted kiJJlng program, Jim Acosta, "Obama to make new!Jlush
to shift control of drones from CIA to Pentagon," April 21, 2015,
http//www.cnn.com/2015/04/27/potitics/drones-cia-pentagon-whitehouse. However!
Senator Feinscein and othern remain skeptical that the military would have !he ClNs
iI

capabilitY ro caJTy out targeted drone strikes with minimal collateral damage. See

i

Hattem!IV1at.ishak, supra. Still others in Government seem indifferent as to which aTency
I

prosecutes the strikes, even in Jight of the revelation that a recent strike inside Pakisfan

'

killed an American and an Italian being held hostage by al Qaeda; "We're not

goin~ to
\

terminate this drone program. I'm sony these two innocent civilians were killed, I'i!i
glad the two Americans collaborating with the enemy were. Please understand we'r~ at
war. lt's a nasty, terri~le business-but I'm in it to win it." Shane Harris, "CIA Dro~es

Target al Qaeda Meeting--and killed Hostages Instead," April 23, 2015, qlloting Se?ator
Lindsey Graham,http://thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/23cia-droncs.

----------,

~--

-.

'

25

i
I

.

TOP SECRET

I
I

L----------~NOFOR~

-

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 26 of 50

TOP SECRET~~--------~

In view of this, I feel obliged at least to consider whether my earlier rulingj

_____________ _Jremains valid_!

But while the extensive and explicit publicity about whether the CIA should;

i

continue to play any "operational i-olc" in targeted killings using drones give mo great
pause on the subject, I am unable to conclude that

the Government has waived FOI~
I
I

exemptions for this document, for three reasons.

26

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 27 of 50

_ _ =1NOFORN

=fOP SECRET/' - - - - - - - - -

r--------

IThat Congress acting in i s

~~~~--;=:==================::;--___J

official

capacit~~------------'~ehaves differently than individu~I

members of Congress in thefr dealings with the press should come as no sw·pl'ise.

I

Fu11hermore, where CIA classified material is concerned Congress has no role to pl~y in

,

I

"official acknowledgem'enr," so individual members; willingness to discuss this sub1cct
openly, despite its status as classified, has no legal significance.

-- -----· - -----'--------,
i

I

' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' T h e cou1't bas carefully revie\yed
cortain statements, called

'°. i1' attention by the ACLU, that were made by offidals i•

OLC, in order to ascertain whether these statements disclose the nature of che CJA's
---------------

--

--

"operational role" in these matters. They do 11ot.

This court has not located any, either.
'---~------

-----

--~-----------'

Executive Branch silence on this subject contrasts wifh t!ic situation that

'

I

confronted the Second Circuit when it was deciding New York Times, Then-Directo1l
Panetta was the person who acknowledged the CIA's "operational role" in drone st1lkes

I

generally, and in the Aulaqi drone strike in particular, New York Times, 156 F.3d 11 ~27

TOP

SECRET~L___--------- ~NOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 28 of 50

TOP SECRE"fl____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =1NOFORN

119. Disclosure by a Government omcial is the necossoty ]lt<dicato for tbo waiver

o(

FOIA exemptions; and that Government official must be from the CIA in order for

I

exemptions for CIA classified material to be deemed waived. See infra.at 4. Panettafs nod
was the necessary predicate to the Circuit's conclusion that the wall of secrecy had

I

~een

'
breached. Had there been only comments by members of Congress, Wtlso11's requfr~ment·
'

that disclosures about the CIA must come from the CIA would not have been

satisfi~d.

Third, even though the Court of Appeals hoid that the Goverrunent had waivfd

FOIA protection for the fact that the CIA had some sort of operational role in drone!
I
stdkcs, it granted the Goverrunent's reque~t to wichhold disclosure. of anything abou~ the

'-----~=~·om the publicly-available version of its opinion in New York \
Times. The panel made 1hat call

at a time when the NDU speech and the ensuing de~ate

about who should run the drone program were a matter of public record. I have

previously expressed the view that this cou1t feels bound by the Second Circuit's derision
\a secret (New York

to keepL_

T;,;res v.

US. Dep'r ofJustice, l l CV 9336 (CM), "Classified Decision on Remand with Resfect
I

10 Issue (3)," September 30, 2014, at 3). That deference compels me to conclude tha~

J

\
must do now as the Court of Appeals did previously on this particular question.

i
1

I

L_

However, the justifications are amply ground~d,
I

I

both in FOIA law and in the Court of Appeals' .actions in this very case. I thus cone ude
that. there has been no waiver ofFOIA exemption for.

28

TOP SECRET.[.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

=1NOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 29 of 50

TOP SECRETlj~----------~----~

' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ j F u s t remain shielded from public "iew. This i
justifies withholding all or any non-segregable poition of documents that discusQ
under both FOIA Exemptions b(l) (classification) and b(3)

I

~---------------'

(statutory authority, in this case the National Security Act, which requires the
withholding information about intelligence sources or method[ --------,-------'

D
I hasten to add that my skepticism about/

docs not extend co any operational details

about['---~~~~~------------.---'

details of any particular strikes, including the Aulaqi strike: It does not extend to
information about

j

And it does not extend to information about methods used to minimize

1

j
collateral damage. All such details fall inarguably within ~xemption (b)(J); for mattfrs

~--

r

covered by the National Security Act, which bars disclosure of intelligence sources and

.

!

methods. As to those detaHs, I cannot see that there has been nny waiver of exemptiJns;
lndecd, not a scintilla of evidence supports any such conclusion.

i

29

i

TOP SECRET'L----~---~------~ -=:JNOFOR~

I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 30 of 50

SECRET'------------~

TOP

-~-----~-_--- --~~

I
I

'----

According to the Government, this group of documents

cons~

1s.;;,~~ofthc~;,um;n~ 1:'

L--~--~-~---------~---_______J

I

this category have already been ruled upon, either by the Second Circuit (Document

ls,
I

the July 2010 OLC-DOD Memorandum) or by this Court in its First Remand Decisibn
I

(Documents 3, 4 and 6).

I

The Government argues that'-------------- :=Jare

exem~t

I

from disclosure for the following reasons:

•

Document numbers refer to the numbered entries on che Revised Classified Ex Parle Index ofOmcl. of
Legal Counsel Documents. October 3, 2014. See Exhibit A to the Third Classified Bies Declaration. A
redacted version of this index. with fedactions as directed by the Second Circuit, has been flied publi ly.
See Dkt. No. Ill, Exh. A.. The document descriptions contained in this submission in many cases pro Ide .
substamio.lly more detail than the Second Circuil was willing to disclose publicly in New York Times pr in
documents disclosed confonnity with that decision. (U)
'

1

in

l____ _
.30

TOP

SECRET1~'--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~NOFOR~

1

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 31 of 50

TOP SECRET/ ' - - - - - - - -

•

The docusncnts arc exempt under Exemption (b)(S) because it is covere . l>y
the presidential conum1nications privilege. It is legal advice provided to a 1
senior-level aide to the President to assist that aide in advising the' President~ to
a contemplated decision. Disclosure of documents ref! ecting confidential legal
advice provided to senior-level presidential aides, like this one, would inhibit the
'
President's ability to engage in effective communication and decisionmaking.

M
•

r='·

I'

The documents arc also exempt under Exempfiou (b)(S) because it is co,lercd

by tke dellb0<ative process
This document ;., ~redecisional beea+ it
was re ared in connection
_ _ _ __]
It is deliberative because it constitutes advice use~ by decisionm,kers,
who received legal advice dul'ing ,
J
interagency deliberations. Compelled disclosure of this document would
undermine the deliberative processes of the BOVernment and chill the candid '.and
I
frank communication necessary for effective governmental decisionmaking. ~ It is
I
essential to the Deparcment of Justice's mission and the deliberative processes of
the Executive Branch that the development of the Department's considered ltgal
advice not be inhibited by concerns about compelled pt1blic disclosure of I
predecisionnl matters. Protecting this document from ccimpelled disclosure
critical to ensuring that Executive Branch attorneys will examine legal argu1*ents
and theories thoroughly, candidly, c.ffectivel)', and in writing, and to ensurii' that
Executive Branch officials will seek legal advice from OLC and the Deprut ent
of Justice on sensitive matters. (U)
,

J

is

I

•

The documents arc also exempt under Exemption (b)(S) been use it is co~ercd
by tbe attorney-client privilege. The document constitutes or reflects final !~gal
advice provided by DOJ to Executive Brimch decisionmakers regtlrding the J ·
legality of
The considCJ·ations !
regarding the need for confidential Executive Brnnch deliberations discussed!

31

TOP

SECRET~----------·~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 32 of 50

TOP SECRET~.___ _ __

_ _ _ _ _ ~NOFORN

I
above are particularly compelling in the context of the provision of legal adv,jice
by DOI to its Executive Branch clients. This document a·eflects confidential
communications among OLC, the Department of Justice, and Executive Brafch
clients made for the pu1pose of r~questing and providing legal advice. In,
providing the legal advice contained in the document, the Department of Justice
was serving in an advisory role as legal counsel to the Executive Branch. HJving
.
I
been requested to provide counsel on the law, the Department of Justice star in a
special relationship oftrnst with the various Executive Branch agencies,
departments, and officials seeking the advke. Just as disclosure of client
confidences in the course of seeking legal advice would seriously disrupt th9
relationship oftrUst so critical when attorneys formulate legal advice to thei(i
clients, disclosure of the advice itself would be equally disruptive to that tru~t. fn
addition, the factual information reflected in the document was provided to GLC
and the Department in connection with a request for legal advice. These clid11t
con!idences·are likewise protected b)' the attorney-client privilege. CU).
'
The Government argues against production of Document 46 for additional
reasons, which I wiil identify when I discuss that documenl.
I will begin the analysis a{

--------------------

-------"--~

Document No. 2f

Ruling;_ There hos been no waiver of these exemptions by virtue of the rclcas~ of
the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other public stateme.rit
I

that has been brnught to the mention of the cou<t by the ACLU. Aocordingly. and jbject

I

to the ruling concerning officially acknowledged facts that is applic.able to all docu ents.

[ conclude that the document need not be produced.

'

32
i

~--------------iLNOFOR~,

· TOP SECRE"f,L-..-------

__f

~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 33 of 50

.____ yoroR~

TOP SECRET( _ _ __

Document No.~

r-------

Ruling: There has been no waiver of these exemptions by virtue of the 1cleasbI of
!

the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other public statemef t
that has been brought to the attention of the court by the ACLU. Accordingly, and s1bject

to the ruling concerning officially acknowledged facts that is applicable to all docunicnls,
[conclude that the document need not be produced.
Document No, 4: Classified legal memorandum dated February 19, 2010, from OL¢I to
the Attorney General,

prnvidi~g legal advice regarding legal authority to use lethal fprce
i

directed against Shaykh Anwar Aulaqi, 11 U.S. citizen. A redacted version of this
memorandum was released to the plaintiffs on August 15, 2014.

Ruling: This Court has already ruled on the status of this document, in the
September 30, 2014 Order. That Order is the subject ofa pending appeal in the Secohd

l

Circuit.
Document No. S: Classified legal memorandum dated July l 6, 2010, from OLC to

t~e

Attorney General, providing legal advice regarding the application of U.S. federal

\

criminal law and the Constitution in connection with the use oflefual force directed

I

against Shaykh Anwar Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen (the "OLC-DOD Memornndum").

33

TOP SECRET/'---_ _ _ __

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 34 of 50

TOP

SECRET~~---------- =1NOFOR~

Ruling: In New York Times, the Second Circuit ordered a redacted version ofthis
document disclosed. Nothing more need be said on the subject. .

Document~

=·

Ruling:f

~----

1 _ '- - - - - - - - - -

Docume1~tNo.

-

46:1--------------

34

.

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 35 of 50

---------TOP SECRET/\___ _ _ _ _._ _ _ _ _ ~
;

I·

35
1

TOPSECRETL-----~--~__ yoroRN

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 36 of 50

·TOP SECRET

--~

llliliflg;_. In addition to the reasons applicable ro

_ J

_· J

the Govemmerit argues that this document is exempt from production for the ~

number ofi.ndependent reasons, most of which related to the fact that there has been
36

no
!

=rNOFOR~.

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 37 of 50
----· ·---·---

TOP SECRFFL

~-

----·---- =:]Nu1

UK~

"official acknowledgement" o

Those reasons arc hishly
persuasive, but they need not be discussed at any length, because the Second Circuit I
I

directed that this document be reviewed in camera, so of course it will be.

I would also point out that the Government's analysis about why this documc~t
i

need not be reviewed in camera

or disclosed is internally inconsistent

37

TOP SECRET

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 38 of 50

TQPSECRETC
----i.u~r~nu
'I.____-----~

: - - - - = - · - - ] T h e legal advice contained in the document cannot be both
"predecisional" and "final;" it is either one or the other.

l_.J
o the extent that the legal advice!

I

·~---==

L

=---..-:=i
I

lit has not been "officially acknowledged" and

;

;

--~-------~

nothing in the opinion in New York Times requires that it be produced. H<~wever, tha~
cannot be ascertained without in camera review, as the Second Circuit anticipated in

New
I
i
I

York Times.

!

RulfagAiler Jn Camera Review: The document was produced for in camera
review. Information that has not been officially acknowledged[

i

~==~---~:____.1

can in fact be segregated from
~----------------'

inforrnatio~
i

that has been publicly aclmowledged (which is legal analysis about the targeting of '.
j

Aulaqi). Everything in the document except the paragraph that begins ~·second" shou,ld
be redacted; only the paragraph that begins "Second" should be produced.

~~~~-.==----i~~-

OLC from its Executive Branch clients.

J

lI

··-···· fequests for legal advice receiv~d by
!
38

TOPSECRETL~~~~~~~· _ _ _ =1NOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 39 of 50

TOP SECRET~'---

- - - - - - --·----- =rNOFORN

))ocument No. 75: Classified and confidential attorney-client communication from

I
I

requesting legal advice from the Attorney General regarding a

I

_______

___, and

convoying facwal inform11tion relevant t6

interagency reque..<it for legal advice'-C
_ _·_-_________

-------~

LJ (U) The Government asse1ts that:
I

•

The document is exempt under Exemption (b)(l) becauso it contains classi~ed
factual information relating to terrorist organizations and particular individuals .
obtained through sensitive intelligence sources and methods, which was provided
to OLC and the Department of Justice in.connection with a re uesc for le al 1

advic~

•

•

c~-

The document is exempt under Exemption (b)(3) (National Security Act)
because it would reveal sensitive intelligence sources and metho

The document is exempt under Exemption (b)(S) because it is covered b the
presidential communications privile~
[
[SCCI<lngtegal advice from thej
Attorney General regarding!

r---;

=------

l

clos~fied

which anaches •
factual memo<andum eontftining intemge.lce.
disclosure of documents reflecting confidential legal advice
provided to senior-level presidential aides or reflecting senior-level president\al
aides' re.quests for such advice would inhibit the Plesident's ability to engageiin
effective communication and dccisionmaking. (U)
i

39

TOP SECRETA'-------- _ _ _ _ =1'NOFORN

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 40 of 50

TOP SEeREF~

JNOFORN

The document is also exempt under lixemption (b)(5) betuusc it is covcrc'd by
the deliberative process pdvilege, Requests by Executive Branch officials !
seeking lef~al advice from OLC. such as this documem, are parl of Executive i
Branch deliberative processes, and disclosing such requests would lend t~ har:m
the sRmc delibc1ative interests as disclosing the resulting advice, as discussed.
above. The document is predecisiomtl because it was prepared in connection ~vith
. .•

.

1

It is deliberative becau..:;c

ii

coustitutes an input both to OLC's internal deliberative process for rendering J
legal advice, and to r.hc broader Executive Branch policymaking process.
Compelled disclosure of the document would undermine the deliberative
processes of the e,overnmcnt and chill the rand id and frank l:ommun:cation
necessary fut effective governmental Jecisiorunaking. It is 1"ssential co OLC'$
mission and the deliberative processes of the Executive Branch that the
development of OLC's considered legal advice not be inhibn.ed by concerns about
compelled public disclosure ofpredecisioual matters. Protecting the docume~t
!~om compelled disclosure is critical to ensuring that. Executive Rranch attorn!eys
will have full access to facts and lceal nrguments necessory to provide through,
camlid, uud accurate written legal advice, and to ensuring that Executive Bratjch
officials will seek legal advice from OLC and the Department of Justice on '
sensitive matters. Moreover, the factual information cout1tincd therein reflects
Executive Branch deliberations l'egarding what particular information is 1·clevant . .
lo Executive Branch decisions about the potenlial \lSe of force
. . . .
...
. Accordingly, the facr chat OLC has possession o:the particulaifahtuai

i

.

I

information contained in the document is protected by the dclibe1·ative prnces~

privilege. (U)

•

The document i~ also exempt under Exemption (b)(5) because it is covcr~d
by the anorncy-client. privilege. The consideration~ regarding the need for ,
confidential Executive Branch deliberations discussed above are particularly ;
compellmg i11 the context of requests for confidential legal advice of OLC or the
Depru1mcnt of" fostice by their Executive Branch clients. The document reflects
confidential communications among OLC, the Department of Justice:, nnd
I
Executive Bianch clients rnade for the purpose of requesting and providing legal
advice. Dist.:losurn of client confidences offered in tlJ~ cour~:e of requesting s~ch
advice would seriously disrupt the relationship of trust so cntical when attorn~ys
formul11te legal advice to their clients. Moreover, the factual information
ret1ccted in the document was provided to OtC in confidcn< t~ in connection V.1 ith
a request for legal odvice. (U)

40

TOP SECRET/

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 41 of 50

-----------·----·--TOP SECRET--------- _ _ _ _ _ _ .:=J'NUI UHN

Ruling; The Second Circuit ordered in camera review of this document, and ~his
i

coutt would have done so on its own initiative. It is not possible to ascertain whether

the

I
privileges with respect to some, or all, of this document have been waived - ~r whethfr

there are reasonably segregable portions of the document that could be disclosed because
I
the legal aµalysis mirrors the analysis that has been waived - without l·eviewing the

document. Accordingly, the Goverrunent must produce Document 75 for in camera
review.

Ruling After Jn Camera Review: There is no reasonably segregable portion o~

,-----

~hatcan be produced. Tab A, whi.ch is tl1e

bulk of the document, consists

04

1

lrhere is no

reas~nably segregable portion of·~ab ·
!

·~~~~~

A that can be produced. The document is exempt under Exemptions (b)(l) and (b)(3).)
There has been no waiver of exemptions by virtue of the release of the OLC-DOD
Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other public statement that has been
brought to the attention of the court by the ACLU, Accordingly, I c:onclude that the

document need not be p1oduced ..
I remind the reader that my ruling with respect to this document, and similar

!
"subject to the ruling concerni~g officially acknowledged facts that is applicable to al~
rulings relating to documents that have been examined in camera by the coutt, is noc

documents," because the court took those facts into account when reviewing the
document.

41
I

TOP SECRETc_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =1NOFORNi

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 42 of 50

TOP SECRET/

fNOFORN

The Governrnent

asserts thal:

class~fied

•

Tbc document is exempt under Exemption (b)(l)J:ieca1Jse it conmins
fac1ual information relating to

•

The document i.s exempt under Exemption (b)(3) (Nationftl Security Act)
hecnusc it wou'.d reveal $ensitive intelligence sources and methods, includin~
specific intelligence aeporting
·

•

The docmnt~nt is ex.empt under Exemption (b)(S) bec11u~e it is cuvcrcd bf the
deliberative process privilege. Requests by Exccu1ivc Br:mch officials seeking
legal advice from OLC, -~uch as this document, are patt of Executive Branch i
dcli\Jerntive processes, and disclosing such requests would tend to harm the sb.mc
delibera(lve interests as disclosing the resulting advice, as discussed above. The
document i;; predecisional because it was preptned in coM~ction with,
_ It is deliberative because it
co11slitutes an input both to OLC's internal deliberative process for rendering;
legal advice, and to the broader Executive Branch policym<iking process.
Compelled disclo~urc of the documcm would undei.minc the delibcrntive
procc::sscs of tl1e government and chill the candid and frank communication
necessury for effective govemmcntal decisionmaking It b t!Ssential to OLC"s
mission and !he dc:libcrativc processes of the Executive BHmch that the
development of OLC's considered legal advice not be inhibited by concerns ~bout
rnmpellcd public disclosure ofpredecisional matters. Prntecting the d{)cumep.t
from compelled disclosure is critical to ensuring that Executive Branch attorrleys
will have foll access to fact'i irnd legal algumcnts necessary to provide tluou~h,
candid, and accurate W(i\!en legal advice, and to ensuring thar Executive Brai1ch
I
officials will seek legal advice from OLC and the Department of Justice on I _
sensitive maners. ·
42

TOP SECRET/.

'NOFORNi

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 43 of 50

TOP SECRET/L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ :=fNu1

uttN

Accordingly, the
fact that OLC has possession of the particulatlI
.
factual infonnation contained in the document is protected by the dcliberativej
j
process privilege. (TSt/Nf)

'----~~~~~

I

•

The document is also ex.empt under Ex.emptiop (b)(5) because it is covered
by the attorney-client privilege. The considerations regarding the need fo1·
confidential Executive Branch deliberations discussed above are particularly !
compelling in the context of requests for confidential legal advice ofOLC or ~he
Depa11ment of Justice by their Executive Branch clients. The document reflects
confidential communications among OLC, the Department of Justice, and
Executive Branch clients made for the purpose of requesting and providing legal
advice. Disclosure of client confidences offered in the course of requesting s4ch
advlce would seriously disrupt the relationship of trust so critical when attorn9ys
formulate legal advice to their clients. Moreover, the factual information
!
reflected in the document was provided to OLC in confidence in connection \~ith
a request for legal advice. Again, the attomey-client privilege protects such c\icnt
confidences. (U}

!
!

Ruliag:

r___________ J
I

, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------.-------'

there has been uo waiver of exemptions by virtue of the

l--~---------~----·-

--·-----

release ofthe OLC-DOD Memorandurn, or the Draft White Paper,

01

any other publif

scatement'that has been brought to the attention of the court by the ACLU. Accordin~ly,
and subject to the ruling concerning officially acknowledged facts that is applicable

t9 all
!

documents, I conclude that the document need not be produced.
However, to ascertain whether segregable po1tions of the document could be

!
i

disclosed, OLC must produce DocUlllent 84 for in camera ieview.

43

TOP SECRET'------------·-- =:JNOFORN

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 44 of 50

TOP SECRETr-L------·---- =:fNOFORN

RulingAfler Jn Camera Review: There has been no waiver of exemptions byi

I

.

i

virtue of the release of the OLC-DOD Memorandµm, or the Draft White Paper, or ai]tY

:
other public statement that has been brought to the attention of the court by the ACIJ'U.

.

I

The document was produced for in camera inspection to deal with segregability, but!I
conclude, after review, that there is nothing to segregate, because

I
I

l

and so is argua+
non-responsive. Accordingly, I conclude that the document need not be produced.
(3)

lmoc. Nos. 8 and 9)

Legal AnaJvsisj

j
I
I

This category consists of two documents containing legal analysis that OLC
._____ _ _ _
- _-_-_--__,} One document (Document 8) is withheld in full; the other
(Document 9) has already been released to plaintiffs in redacted form,
Documcut No.

aj

1-___________

!The Government as-se_r_ts_t_h-at_:_ _ _ __

•

rod

The document Is e:xempt under Exemption (b)(l) because it consists of
legal

•n_.i_y.;f

44

TOP SECRET( ___________·--~- · - - =:}NqFORN

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 45 of 50

TOP SECRET(_·_ _ _ _ _ _ __

--------

-

. ---~---

-·----------'~-~

I

•

The document is exempt µnder Exemption (b)(3) (National Security Act):
becnuse it would reveal sensitive intelligence sou1·ces and methods[
----------------~-

Ruling: The Second Circuit ordered this document produced for in camera
review.[

45
i

TOPSECREnl~------~~~-==1NOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 46 of 50
- - · ·-------- ---··~-.. --------·--·- -----·-.--;====-----····--· - - - - - - - -

_/NeFeRN-

TOP SECRET/

______ _j__

Since in this instance context matt;ers,
I do not believe the bullet points can reasonably be segregated from the sentence
beginning "Second" that precedes them, and as to that sentence (and the rest of the

j
I

i

docwnent) there has been no waiver of FOIA ex~mptions by virtue of the release of the
i
OLC-DOD Memornndum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other public statement th~t
has been brought to the attention of the court by the ACLU .. Therefore, Document 8 (lec:d
not be produced.
If the Court of Appeals were to disag[ee with my conclusion that context mat~ers,
then it is obvious that the bullet points at the bottom of page S and the top of page 6 )
could be extrnctcd and produced. I see no reason to do that; it appears that all, or nea11ly

all, of that information is contained in the porcions of Document 9 that the Governmept
has already prnduced.
Document No, 9: Classified DOJ white paper dated May 25, 2011, entitled Legality ?fa
i

Lethal Operation by the CIA Against a U.S. Cilizen, drafted for Congress and present)ng
legal analysis 1·egarding the legal basis for the CIA to tise lethal force against a U.S.

!

citizen abroad in certain circumstances. A redacted version of this document has bee~1
i

released to plaintiffs. (U) The Government asserts that:

•

The withheld portions of this document arc exempt under Exemption (b)(l)

·-----·--

--------~

46

TOPSECRETL...--~~~~~~~~~-==1NOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 47 of 50

____ =1Nu1

TOP SECRET/

•

Ul"<N.

'fhc withheld portions of this document are exempt under Exemption (b)(3)
(National Security Act) because they would reveal sensitive intelligence sou'·ces
and met~

I

!____J
I

Ruling: The Second Circuit ordered in camera review of this document. I note
that the Government's rationale for releasing a redacted version of Document 9 and ,

withholding the rest of the docµment rests entirely on the finding that there has been ~o
waiver ofFOIA exemptions fo1·

'-------------

RuUng After In Camera Review: The portions of rhe document that have not

already been produced by the Government need not be produced.

47

TOP SECRET~.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 48 of 50
- - --------------------TOP SECRET{.- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~NOi-ORN

(4) Documents Reflecting Internal Executive Branch l..cgal
(Doc. Nos. 7, 10-11, 13, 54)

Deliberati~ns

!
I

I

This grnup consists of documents that were received by OLC from its Executive
Branch clients; they assertedly reflect views, comments on drafts, and other deliber~ions
I

'

regardin~ the appropl'iate fogal and fac~al analysis of the use of tai·geted lethal fore~
against a!U.$. citizen in certain circumstances. (U)
Document No. 7: Classified legal memorandum
!-~-------·--~

'---------

-----~~

i

_ _ _ _ _- lcontaining deliberations regarding the appropriate l~gal

anelysis of

j
I

r--------__J

_ _ _ _ _ _Jhe Government asserts that:

•

'

I

The document is exempt under Exemption (b)(3) (National Security Act)
because it woul4 reveal sensitive intelligence sources and m~

48

TOP

SECRET~

.. _ - - - · · · - - - - - - - =1NOFOR"f

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 49 of 50

=roP sEcRETC_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ :=}NoreRN

·•

The document is exempt under Excm
because it js covered b
~--~--~~--~
delibel'ative process privilege

c

-----------~

----·- ---- · · · - - -

--------·--

-

------

The document is also exempt under Exemption (b)(S) llecnuse it is covereµ by
the anorney-client privilege. The document reflects confideutial client
coinmunications to OLC and the Department of Justice made for the ptlrpose
seeking legal advice, The document also reflects a back-and-fo1th between o;r_,c
and its Executive Branch clients concerning the content of particular OLC ad~ice,
and such give-and-take inevitably reflects OLC's view regarding the appropr*te
legal analysjs in the. circumstances under deliberation, as well as the client's i
response. As such, the document is also pl'oCected by the attoruey-client privi/ege.
(U)

pf

Ruling: The Second Circuit ordered ;n came1·a review ot; this document. To the

-------·---·-··-- --------· ---1 I
I

extent that this document discusse

~---]there has been no waiver of exemptions· by virtue of the release of the

I

49

..
I

TOP SECRET/

~-~~~-~~--

---~NOFOR~.

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128 Filed 07/16/15 Page 50 of 50

TOP SECRET1l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

--~

OLC;-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other public statement t~at
!
r

has been'. brought to the attention of the cou1t by the ACLUf

It is also possible that any such discussion cannot 1·easonably be segregated from

discussionL'--.,--------~ as to which there has been no waiver. It is not
possible to !'each any sort of c.onclusion without seeing the document.
----------'
Ruling After In Camera Review:

_____ Ii

conclude that

this memorandum should not be produced. It does not reproduce the legal analysis a~ to
which there has been waivcrr-'-__
· ----------'~ It is a quintessential

i

!

deliberative document. There has been no waiver of exemptions by virtue of the rele~se

of the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft While Paper, or any other public state1pent
that has

been brought to the attention of the court by the ACLU. Accordingly, I condlude

that the ~oc.ument need not be produced.

Docun1cnt No.

10j
50

TOP SECRET'--~~~-

_______ =:JNOFORN

r

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 1 of 50

TOP SECRET

. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----'--i

_JNOFORN

___ ·-· _-··-· _ -----·-···-- _________ Fccording to the Government:

•

I

,

I

The document is exempt undcl· Exemption (b)(I) because it con1ains classified
/
. factual information conce~·ni~g theC _ .
~---.=:J The Second Circuit redacted such information from the OLC-000
Jl1emorandum. (~)
·

• T~c document is exempt under Exeinption (b)(3) because it would reveal
s~nsitive intelligence sources and metho~s_Erotected from disclosui:c under t~e
[tional Secu1ity Act,'-!_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____,

•

Tbc document is exempt under Exemption (b)(S) because it is covered bJt the
deliberative process privilege. The document is predecisio11al because it was
prepared in connection\
Jt

is· deliberative because it constitutes advi~e; views, and legal deJibe~atio
~ y
d~cisionmakers 1

----------~----

a11d others who received legal advice from the Attorney General during
interagency deliberations. Compelled disclosure of the document would
undermine the deliberative processes of the government and chill the candid and
frank communication necessary for effective governmental decisionrnaking. j
Prntccting the document from compelled disclosure is critical to ensuring tha~
Executive Branch attorneys will examine legal arguments and theories
:
thoroughly, candidly, effectivdy, and in writing, and to ensuring thnt Executive
Bi·anch officials will seek legal advice from OLC and the Department of Justice
sensitive matters. Importantly, although the Second Circuit concluded th~t
there had been a waiver of privilege as to the final legal analysis in the OLC-pOD
Memorandum, nothing in the Second Circuit's opinion suggests that the waiver
could extend to undisclosed attorney-client communications or inter-agency .·
dcliberatio.ns concerning the legal analysis in the document. (U)

I

on

The document is also exempt under- Exemption (b)(S) because it is coverep by
the attorney-client privilege. The document reflects confidential cJient
communications to OLC and the Depa1"tment of Justice made in connection v!•ith a
request for legal advice. As such, the document is also protected by the atlor~ey­
client privilege. (U)

!

51

TOP SECRET/L
1 ------

______

~NOFORJ

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 50

TOP SECRET~~~---~--~-·~
I

I

Ruling: The Second Circuit did not order in camera re\•iew for this docume+
but it must be produced for such review nonetheless. Again, che issue is segregabilityj

~--------,--------J OLC must produce Document 10 for tn j
camera segregability review.
RiilingAfier In Camera Review: Information as to which exemptions have b~bn
waived is not reasonably segregable - indeed, is not segregable at all - from information

.___ _=1_~as to which there has been no waiver of exemptions. The document ne~
not be produced.

Docnn1cnt No.

11:1

.

-----

JThe ~overnme~t
!

asserts that:

Tli.c document is exempt under Exemption (b)(l) because it contains class{fied
1
in1:elligence repmting about!
.

•

I
•

The document is exempt undcl' Exemption (b )(3)

I

L----~--52
TOP SECRErC. ___________ =1NOFORN.

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 3 of 50

SECRET~.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =:JNOFORN

TOP

. ,-

L__.__ _
•

T~1e documcut is exempt under Exemption (b)(S)

because it is covered bylthe
deliberative process privilege_ The document is predecisional because it was:
:repared in_ connection withe=-·
_
It

j

is: detiberallve b~cause it constitutes advice, views, and legal deliberations usbd by
d~cisionmakers,[ _ ·and others who received legal advice from the Attorney General during

T-

iriteragency deliberations. Compelled disclosure of the document would
1
undermine the deliberative processes of the government and chill the candid ~nd
frank communication necessary for effective governmental decisio1UTiaking. ;
Pi-otecting the document from compelled disclosure is critical to enstiring tha~
Executive Branch attorneys will examine legal arguments and theories
·
.

I

thoroughly, candi_dly, effectively, and i_n writing, and to ensuring that Execut~e
B~anch officials will seek legal advice from OLC and the Depaltment of Just,ce
on sensitive maners. Itnporiantly, although the Second Circuit concluded tb~t
there had been a waiver of privilege as to the final legal analysis in rhe OLc-poo
Memorandum, nothing in the Second Circuit's opinion si1ggests that the wai~er
could extend to und.isclosed drnfts of that document, comments on drafts, or !
related intra- or inter-agency deliberations concerning ihe legal analysis in thh
I
decument, let alone commenls on che factual section of the document, which jthe
Second Circuit redacted in its entirety. (U)
;
.

•

i

.

!

The document is also exempt under Exemption (b)(S) because it is covered by
th:e attorney-client privilege. The document reflects confidential client

l

communications to OLC and the Department of Justice made for the purposeiof
·seeking legal advice. As su~h. the document is also prntcctcd by the attorne:>l-

I

cl.icnt privilege. (U)

!

Ruling: There has been no waiver of these exemptions by vhtue of the

relea~e of

the OLC~POD Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other public statemeft
that has b,een brought to the attention of the cou11 by the ACLU. This document was

i
'

prepared :a month before the OLC-DOD Memorandum was finalized, and it conrains\

53

TOP SECRET~~~~~~~--~~~~ =.JNOFORN

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 4 of 50

TOP SECRET1

obviously predecisional comments about an earlier draft of that document. Drafts oflhe

.

. I

OLC-DOD Memorandum are not comprehended in the Second Circuit's ruling which

'.

I

applies to final legal advice that was disclosed publicly by virtue of the Draft White i
Paper. A<;cordingly, and subject to the ruling conce~ning officially acknowledged
that is

rac'ts

ap~licable to all documents, 1 conclude that the document need not be produce~.

-~~~·~
L

---------

------·-~J

~--------__J The Government asserts that:

•

;
i
T~c document ls e:<cmpt under Exemption~ecause it contains classi~ed

=i

factual information concerninL

!

C_:==J The Second Circuit redacted such information from the OLC-DO~
Memorandum. ffS/c=JNµ.)

•

l

1

I

The document is .exempt under Exemption (b)(3) because it would reveal '
sensitive intelligence sources and methods protected from disclosure under th~
National Security Act,
~C]NF-)

•

1

..____

uyi

The document is exempt under Exemption (b )(5) been use it is covered
the
d1:libcrative process privilege, The document is predecisional because it wa's
prppared in connection withL.-._
) It
is eliberative because it constitutes advice, views, and legal deliberations usf by
oic in its preparation of legal advice for decisionmakers. Compelled disclo ure
of the document would undermine the dclibc1'ative processes of the govcmme t
an:d chill the candid and frank communication neccssaryfor effective
governmental decisionmaking. Protecting the document from compelled
.
disclosure is critical to .ensuring that Executive Branch attorneys will e:Xamin~
legal arguments and theol'ies thoroughly, candidly, effectively, and in writing! and
to:ensuring that Executive Branch officials will seek legal advice from OLC ~d
th~ Department of Justice on sensitive matters. Importantly, although the Sedond
Circuit concluded that there had been a waiver of privilege as to tl1ejina/ legal
analysis in the OLC-DOD Memorandum, nothing in the Second CiJcuit's opi~iop
s~ggests that the waiver could extend to undisclosed attorney-client

f

!

54

!

TOPSECRETI~t~~~~-

.____ JoroR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 5 of 50

-------------

TOP SECRET~.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =1NOI OftN

communications or i11te1·-agency deliberations concerning the legal analysis in; the
document. (U)
i
.

I

;

• ,,The document is also exempt under Exemption (b)(S) because it is covered by
the attorney-client privilege. The document reflects confidential cJient
1
.co~nmunications to OLC and the Department of Justice in connection with a

I

request for legal advice. As such. the document is also protected by th~ atto~ey-

client privilege.. (U)

'

I

RJ/ing: There has been no waiver of these exemptions by viitue of the releasJ of
'

-

I

.

I

the OLC-1?0D Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other public statement
:

.

that has b4en brought

.

I

to the attention of the court by the ACLU. This document was

j
I

I

prepared P,rior to the release of the OLC-DOD Memorandum and it contains obvi.ousl~

i
predecisional comments about a dl'aft of that document. Drafts of the OLC-DOD
Memorandum are not comprehended in the Second Circuit's ruling, which applies to
final legal advice that was disclosed publicly by virtue of the Draft White PapeL'.

Accordingly, and subject
to the ruling concerning officially acknowledged facts that
.

is

applicable to all documents, I conclude that the document need not be produced. ·

Ii

Document No. 13:

D

I

'---~~~~~-~~~~~-~~~

pro~iding comments on an excerpt of n draft of Document 5, the OLC-DOD

Memoranaum. Although this document originally was classified. it no longer contaix}s
classified :information. However, the Government argues that:.
;

.

•

I

Tile document is exempt under Exemption (b)(S) because it is covered by the
deiiberative process privilege. The document is ptedecisional because it was

i

prepared in connection with a contemplated future counterten:orism operaii?nl. It
is deliberative because it constinites advice, views, and legal deliberatio11s
provided to OLC to assist in OLC's preparation of final legal advice for
:
decisionmal<ers. Compelled disclosure of the document would undermine th~
deliberative processes of the government and chill the candid and frank
;·
communication necessary for effective governmental decis~onmaking. Protec~ing

!

:

I

SS

TOP s·ECRETL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =1NOFORN!

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 6 of 50

'FOP SECRET...___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =1NOfORN

•

the document from compelJed disclosure is critical to ensuring that Executi~ei
Br.anch arrorneys wHI examine legal arguments and theories thoroughly, candidly,
effectively, and in writing, and to ensuring that Executive Branch officials will
seek legal advice from OLC and the Department of Justice on sensitive matte~s.
Importantly, although the Second Circuit concluded that there had been a waii~r
of:privilege as to the final legal atialysis in the OLC-DOD Memorandum, nothing
in the Second Circuit's opinion suggests that the waiver could extend to
!
undisclosed drafts of that document, commencs on drafts, or related intra- or i~terag~ncy deliberations concerning the legal analysis in the document. (U)
i
I
T&e document is also exempt under Exemption (b)(S) because it is covered by
the attorney-client privilege. The document reflects confidential client
communications to OLC and the Department of Justice made for the purpose pf
seeking legal advice .. The document also reflects a back-and-fo11h between OtC
!
and its Executive Branch clients. Such give-and-take inevitably reflects OLqs
view regarding the appropriate legal analysis in the circumstances under
Ii
deliberation, and thus contains implicit legal advice from OLC to those client . As
such, the document is also protected by the attorney-client privilege. (U)

I

R~ling: There has been no waiver of these exemptions by vi1tue of the releasf of
the OLC-DOD Memorandum or the Draft White Paper, or any other public statemetjt

:

,

!

that has been brought to the nttention of the com1 by the ACLU. This document was j

prepared prior to the release of the OLC-DOD Memorandum and it contains obviously
predecisional comments about a draft of that document. Drafts of the OLC-DOD

i
I

Memorandum are not comprehended in the Second Circuit's ruling, which applies toj
final lega( advice that was disclosed publicly by vhlue of the Draft White Paper.

I

I
I

Accordingly, and subject to the rnling concerning officially acknowledged facts that js

;
applicabl~ to all documents, 1 conclude that the document need not be produced.

Docume~t No.

54:1-

56

TOP SECRETL_ _ __

I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 7 of 50

-----·--- ·-------

TOP SECRE=rl(_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~ ~
I·

I

I

~. ___ __j The attached draft DOJ White Paper is dated OctobeJ' 25, 201 J, and
contains handwritten notes. Although this document originally was classified, it no

longer contains classified information. However, the Government asserts that:
•

T1;1c document is C.."tcmpt under Exemption (b)(S) bccl\usc it is covered byJthe
d~liberath•e process privilege. The document is predecisional because it
prepared in connection with contemplated future decisions abo.ut potential
I
di~closures to Congress regarding this topic. It is deliberative lx:cause it
!
constitutes advice, views, and legal deliberations used by decjsionmakers,
inyluding rhe Attorney General, the National Security Advisor, and others.
C6rnpelled disclosure of the document would undermine the deliberative
prpcesses of the govc!'nment and chill the candid and frank communication i
I
nepessary for effective governmental decisionmaking. Protecting the documelnt
fr~m compelled disclosure is critical to ensuring that Execut.ive Branch attom~ys
~Ill e_"_amine legal .nrgu.ments and rheo.ries thoroughly, .candi~ly, effec1ivel y,
1
m :wntmg, and to ensurmg that Executive Branch officials will seek legal ad''!ce
frc?m OLC and the Department of Justice on sensitive matters. Importantly,
although a draft version of the DOJ White Paper, dated November 2011, has een
!
I
officially acknowledged, the version attached to this document is au earlier :
version, dated October 25, 2011, that contains handwritten notes and comme~ts.
Nothing in the Second Circuir's opinion suggests that the waiver as to the leg I
a~alysis in the version released to the public could extend to undisclosed dra s of
that document, comments on drafts, or related intra- or inter-agency deliberations
co;ncerning the legal analysis in the document. (U)
j •

wab

1nd

'

•

I

T~e document is also exempt under Exemption (b)(S) because it is covcr~d by
1

I

,

th'cI attorney-client privilege. The document reflects confidential c ient
co'rnmunications to OLC and the Depai"tment of Justice made for the purpose 'of
seeking legal advice., and the document may also reflect a back-and-forth bet~·een
oLc and its Executive Branch clients, and such give-and-take inevitably refl~cts
OLC's view regarding the apprnpriate legal analysis in the circumstances under
d~Jiberation, and thus contains implicit legal advice from OLC to those client~. As
su~h, che document is also protected by the attome~·client p'.·ivileg~. (U)

i

Ruling: There has been no waiver of these exemptions by virtue of the releasi:. of

:

:

!

the OLC-bon Memorandum, or the Diaft White Paper, or any other public stateme~t
l

that has been brought io the attention of the court by the ACLU. Accordingly, and su~ject
~

;

57

-------·---- ------

TOP SECRET•L__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

~

I

=:1fNOFOR~!

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 8 of 50

-= ·--_-

TOP SECRE=rr
_______

~- =rNOFORN
i

to the ruling concerning officially acknowledged facts that is applicable to all docJents
'

.

!I

I conclude that the documenr need not be prnduced,

(5) Documents Containing Draft OLC Legal Analysis or Other Prclilninn 1-y
.
Ol.C Work Product {Doc. Nos. 50, 120-22Ll44-47, 243)
/ .

~.s all o.fthese ~ocuments were ordered produced by the ~econd Circuit for

.

it

camera tl'}spect1on, I will first set out the Government's argument for why each one 1ieed.
.

!

not be pr~duced, and at the end of that I will discuss and rule on them as a group.
;

I

i
I

Document No. SO: Internal OLC draft insert to draft legal analysis of the legal basis ~or
I

the use opethal force against a U.S. citizen abrnad in certain circumstances. The
document consists of a draft two-paragraph inse11, dated October 24, 2011, to

!

:

t~e dr~ft

DOJ Whiite Paper, Although this document originally was classified, it no longer

contains Classified information. However, the Government asserts that:
·•

The document is exempt under Exemption (b)(S) bocauso it is coveted by[thc
deliberative pi:ocess prMlege. The document,contains attorneys' informal vipws
arid preliminary thoughts and reactions, and is integral to the development o~
I
.
O~C's final legal analysis o{the issue at hand. The document is thus
I
ptedccisional to both the final legal analysis of the question at hand, and to
contemplated future decisions about potential disclosures to Congress or the
pl)blic regarding this topic. And it is deliberative, because is a d1·aft or
:
•
compilation
of preliminary thoughts regarding legal advice to be used b)1
:
I
decisionmekers regarding such furure decisions regarding potential disclosures. It
I
does not fall within the scope of tho waiver found by the Second Circuit beca)Jse,
I
although the Department of Justice subsequently acknowledged a November ~O 11
draft of a DOJ White Pape1-, this document consists of draft language for pos~ible
intlusion in an earlier draft of the White Paper. Nothing in the Second Circuit's
'
I
opinion suggests that in acknowledging the November 2011 drnft DOJ Whitd
P1wer, the Department or OLC had waived privileges as to earlier drafts or other
wprk product relating to that legal analysis. (U)

!

!

•

'i

The document is exempt under Exemption (b)(S) because it is covered bJ! the
attorney-client privilege. Although the document may not have been actually:
conveyed to .OLC's Executiv~ Branch clients, disclosure of this internal wor~
'
I
iI
58
'

TOP

SECRET~L----------- -=:JNOFORN

.

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 9 of 50

TOP SECRET~~----------------~

product would disclose the confidential fact chat OLC's legal advice had be~n
r7quested with regard to the draft DOJ White Paper. In addition, most of thi~
il~temal draft Work product contains confidential inf~rmation provided TO OQC in
crnnection With a request for legal advice. The attorney-client privilege profects
!
such client confidences. (U)
;
i
Document 50 is an email fmm Virginia Seitz ofOLC to herself. It consists o~ a
1

I

proposed insert to the Draft White Paper, between its first and second sentences. It /
consists ~fa brief precis of the legal reasoning thal it explicated in greater detail in t~e
Draft White Paper and the OLC-DOD Memorandum. Every statement in this

docu~ent
I

appears elsewhere in one or both of those documents, one of which was leaked to N~C
News, th~ other of which the Second Circuit found to be ineligible for protection frotn
.

'I

FOIA disclosure because of the Government's waiver of al FOIA exemptions. It m~st be
I
disclose~.

Documcht Nos. 120 and 243: Document 120 is an undated internal OLC outline of,

i

!

classified factual info1mation pc1taining to Aulaqi and AQAP, provided in confidenfe in
.

.

I

.

connecti9n with interagency request for legal advice, and prepared in connection wi\b
.

i

:

drafting legal advice l'egarding a contemplated operation against Aulaqi. The docun?ent
i
I

also

conl~ins a brief outline of topics to be addressed in legal analysis, as well as a Ji~t of

"outstanding·issues" to be discussed. Document 243 is an electronic draft ofDocu~ent
120. The: Government asserts that:
I

•

T)ie documents are exempt under Exemption (h){l) because they contain !
ciassified information about intelligence sources and methods
L _ _ _ .==Jas a basis for its legal analysis. The document in~c-lu_d_c_s-de_t_a1-·te-d~.~
intelligence about al-Qa'ida, AQAP, end leaders of those groups, including ·
•
Auhiqi, which has not been officially acknowledged. Disclosure of this
information would tend to reveai the nature of the intelligence sources utiliz~d, as
.._..,;cu as the specific information obtained from these sources, whic!!__~oul~__ J
r~asonably be expected to harm national security.
]

:

!

sg

--T
\

TOP SECRET

:=)NOFORN .

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 10 of 50

· - · - - · - - --------

TOP SECRET!(

l

---------------

- - - - ==1NurUKN

----

-·~

_j

The m
. tiormatlon
' m
' this
. document is a precursor to the factual 1
background and analysis that the Second Circuit redacted from the OLC-Don!
Me'morandum.
/
;

•

The documents are exempt under Exemption (b)(3) and the National
Secul'ity Act because disclosure would reveal sensitive intelligence sources 'nd
me~hods

•

•

The documents arc exempt under Exemption (b)(S) because they nre cove~·ed
by the delibernti\•e process privilege. Such informal OLC attorney work .
product generated in connection with the preparation and provision of OLC Jc~al
advice is quintessential deliberative material. The document contains attorney~'
informal views and preliminary thoughts and reactions, and is integral to the )
development of OLC's final legal analysis of the issue at hand. The document is
thus predecisional to both the final legal analysis of the question at band, and ~o
the contemplated future counte1ten-orism operation to which the analysis relatts.
And it is deliberative, because it is a draft or collection of preliminary though~
regarding legal advice to be used by decisionmakers regarding such future
!
decisions regarding operations or potential disclosures. Importantly, although!the
Second Circuit found a waiver as to final legal analysis in the OLC-DOD
Memorandum, nothing in its analysis suggests that the waiver extends to
p1'eliminary attorney work product that that preceded the final document. (U)j
The documents aa·e also· exempt under Exemption (b)(S) because they are i
covered by the attorney-client privilege. Although it may not have actually b9cn
conveyed to OLC's Executive Branch clients, disclosure of this internal work
product would disclose facts and information deemed significant by OLC in t~e
preparation of its legal advice. In addition, this internal draft work produce ·
contains confidential information provided to OLC in connection with a reque~t
for legal advice. The attorney-client privilege protects such client confidence~.
J

(U)

60

TOP SECRET~

~------

---------

~NOFORtJ

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 11 of 50

-·--

TOP

-------- ------------

SECRET~---------~

Document No, 121: Undated internal OLC outline of classified factual information
provided in confidence in connection with intcragency request for legal advice, and

i

prepared in connection with drafting legal advice regarding a contemplated operation

i

i

against Aulaqi. The outline contains a list ofropics to be discussed with, and quesrio~s to

I

be posed to, clients in connectio!l with drafting legal advice. The Government asserts/

i

I

chat:

i

•

The document is exempt under Exemption (b)(l) and the National Sccurify
Act because it contains classified info1mation about intelligence soui·ces and I
me'rhods
~as a basis for its legal analysis. Disdospre
• of this information would tend to reveal the nature of the intelligence sources l
utilized, as well as the specific infom1ation obtained from these sources, whict\
coµld reasonably be expected to harm national security. The document also \
contains
~
[ - - _,
j This docume.nt contains inforn1atior1

that is similar to information in the factual background and analysis that the
Seeond Circuit redacted from the OLC-DOD Memorandum.

I

C

i
1

I

'

•

The document is exempt under Exemption (b)(3) and the Nationlll SecuriQ'
Act because it would reveal sensitive intelligence sources _!nd methods

•

Th'c document is exempt under Exemption (b)(S) because it is covered by t 1 e
1
•
del.iberative process privilege. Such informal OLC attorney work prnduct
generated in connection with the preparation and provision of OLC legal ad,·i~e is
quintessential deliberative material. The document contains attorneys' informpl
views and preliminary thoughts and reactions, and is integral to th~ developmTnt
of OLC's final legal analysis of the issue at hand. The document 1s thus
;
predecisional to both the final legal analysis of the question at hand, and to the
I

I.

61
I

TOPSECRETL-~~~~

_ _ _ _ =1NOFORN\

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 12 of 50

- ---------TOP SECRET

_____

~NOFORN-

contemplated future counterterrorism operation to which the analysis relates. And
it is deliberative, because it is a draft oi- collection of preliminary thoughts
reg!irding legal advice to be used by decisionmakers regarding such future
1
decisionli regarding operations or potential disclosures .. Importantly, although[ the
Second Circuit found a waiver as to final legal analysis in the OLC-DOD
!
Me~orandum,
nothing in its am1lysis suggests that the waiver extends to
I
' .
.
l
preliminary attorney work product that that preceded the final document. (U) :

!

!

•

The document is also exempt under Exemption (b)(S) because it is covereJ
by the attorney-client privilege. Although it may not have actually been conve,~ed
to OLC's Executive Branch clients, disclosure of this internal work prnduct would
I
disclose facts and information deemed significant by OLC in Che preparation its
legal advice. In addition, this internal draft work prnduct contains confidencia
inf~rmation provided to OLC in connection with a request for legal advice. T, e
11 .
attorney-client privilege protects such client confidences: (U)

1

Docutnent No. 122: Undated internal OLC outline containing classified factual
I

informatiop provided in confidence in connection with interagency request for legal
advice, prepared in coIIDection with drafting legal advice, and identifying "follow up"lco
be done

in:co~ection with drafting legal advice, regarding a contemplated operation!

against Au)aqi. The Ooverruncnt asserts that:

•

Tb~ document is exempt under Exemption (b)(I) and

•

The document is exempt under Exemption (b)(3) nnd the National Sccuri""
because it would reveal sensitive intelligence sources and methods!

the N1ttion11.l Securi1
Act because it contains classified information about intelligence sources and '.
mep1ods ·
~as a basis for its legal analysis. The , i
document also contains specific infonnation regard~

Act

62
!

TOP SECRET~L---- · - -

---

:=JNOFOR~.
!
I

_,

.

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 13 of 50

--·-- ----:-----.-

SECRETC~_·- - - -

TOP

---

·----------

_ _ _ =1NOFORN

Th~ document is exempt under E~cmption (b)(S) bcc11usc it is co"ered by the
deliberati:c process. priv~lcge. Such infoJ·mal OLC attorney work product
ge~eraied m coru1ect1on with the preparation and provision of OLC legal advic~ is
q~i{1tessential ~el~berative material. The document contains attomeys' inform'!
vJews a~d prehnunary thou~hts and_teactions, and is integral to the developmert
.. of OLC s final legal analysis of the issue at hand. The document is thus
prepecisional to both the final legal analysis of the question at hand, and to the!
co1*emplated future counterteITodsm operation to which tbc analysis relates. ~nd
it i~ de_liberativc, b~cause it is a draft or collection of preliminary thoughts
/'
reg~rdmg legal advice to be used by decisiorunakers regarding such future
.
dec~sions regarding operations or potential disclosures. Importantly, althoughjthe
Sec;ond Cil'cuit found a waiver as to final legal analysis in the OLC-DOD
Mernorandum, nothing in its analysis suggests that lhe waiver extends to
p1·eJiminary attorney work product that that preceded the final doc\lment. (U)

•

I

i
i

•

Th~ document is also exempt under Exemption (b)(S) because it is covered
by the attorney-client privilege. Although it may not huve actually been
codveyed to OLC's Executive Branch clients, disClosure of this internal work
pro~v.ct would disclose facts and information deemed significant by OLC in th~
pre~aration of its legal advice. In addition, this internal draft work product j
contains confidential foformotion provided to OLC in connection with a requc4t
for!legal advice. The attorney-client plivilege protects such client confidences!

I

i

(UY

I

longer contains classified infonnation. The Government asse1ts that:

'

I

I
I

•

The document is exempt under Enmption (h)(S) because it is covered by t~e
•
I
delJberative process privilege. It is an internal OLC outline prepared in
·
connection with the drafting of legal advice. Such informal OLC attorney wo1ik
prdd\lct generated in connection with the preparation and provisio~ of OLC le¥al
advice is quintessential deliberative matedal. The document contains attomeyf'
infbrmal views and preliminary thoughts and reactions, and is integral to th.e !
de'{elopmcnt of OLC's final legal analysis oft~e issue at han?, The documenj is
thus predccisional to bolh the final legal analysis of the questton at hand, and tp
·i,

63

I
l
i

TOP S E G R E T A ' - - - - - - - - - - - :=JNOFOR~

·-:-

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 14 of 50

·--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOP SECRET( _ _

==1NtJt=Ul<N

the contemplated future counterte1Torism operation to which che analysis relate~.
And it is deliberative, because it is a drnft or collection of preliminary thoughts!
/
regarding legal advice to be used by decisionmakers regarding such future
decisions regarding operations or potential disclosures. Impo1tantly, althoughlthc
Second Circuit found a waiver as to final legal analysis in the OLC-DOD
i
Memorandum, nothing in its analysis suggests that the waiver extends to·
preliminary attorney work product that that preceded the final document. (U)
•

Th~ document is also exempt under ll:xc1nption (b)(S) because it is covere~
by ~he attorney-client privilege. Although it may not have actually been convered
to QLC's Executive Branch clients, disclosure of this internal work product would
'
.
.
I
disd1ose facts and information deemed significant by OLC in the preparation of its
leg~l advice. In addition, this internal draft work product contains confidential!
inf9rmation provided to OLC in coruiection with a request for legal advice.
attdrncy-client privilege protects such client confidences. (U)

Tlr
1
I

.

Doct~ment Nos. 145-147:
facts and

Document 145 is an undated internal outline of classified

l~gal analysis prepared in connection with the.drafting of legal advice, and

I
j

entitled "dutline of Analysis: Possible Lethal Operation Against Anwar Aulaqi.,,
Documen~ 146 is a copy of Document

145 with handwrilten attorney notations.

Documenf 147 is a copy of Document 145 with different attorney handwritten notations.

The Government asserts chat:

• Thisc documents are exempt unde1· Exemption (b){l) because they containj
]
cla$sified infoi:mation about intelligence sources and methods\
'-----~-· ~s a basis for iis legal analysis. The outline includes detailed
j
int<llligence about al-Qa'ida, AQAP, leaders of those groups, including Aulaqi,
whJch has not been publicly acknowledged. Disclosure of this information wo~ld
cend. to i·eveal the nature of the intelligence sources utilized, as well as the spec)fic
I
inf~rmation obtained from these sources, which could reasonably be expected to
harf:n national security. I

C _ _ _ _ _ _~
•

The documents arc exempt under Exemption (b)(3) and the National
Security Act because they would reveal sensi.tive intelligence sources and
methods
·_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _\
i
~--·------ 64
1
i

TOP SECRET _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 15 of 50

--------------~--

··--------

--~

TOPSECREf[

-------

----------

---·--------•

The docu~ent~ ar-e exempt ~~der Exemption (h)(S) because they are cover~d
by the debberat1ve process prmlege. Such informal OLC attorney work produ'ct
generated in connection with the preparation and provision ofOLC legal advicb is
quintessential deliberative material. The outline contains attorneys' informal i
vie~s and preliminary thoughts and reactions, and is integral to the developme~t
of~LC's final legal analysis of the issue at hand. The outli'.ne is thus '
!
prefecisional to both the final leg~I analysis _of the q\l~stion at hand'. and to thej
contemplated future countertermnsm operation to which the analysis relates tnd
it i~ deliberative, because it is a draft or collection of preliminary thoughts .
reg~r~ing legal ~dvice to b.c used by dec'.sio~nakers regarding su'ch future.
dec1S1ons regarding opei-attons or potential disclosures. Importantly, although ~he
ScC,ond Circuit found a waiver as to final legal analysis in the OLC-DOD
·
Memorandum, nothing in its analysis suggests that the waiver extends to
un4isclosed drafts or other attorney work product that that preceded the final !
dodument. In addition, the handwriuen notations 011 Documents 146 and 147 're
part ofOLC's deliberative process of preparing draft legal advice, and thus ar~
alslil protected by the deliberative process privilege. (U)
:

I

•

The documents nre also exempt under Exem(>lion (b)(S) because they are /
coJ.ered by the attorney-client privilege. Although it may not have actually be~n
corlveyed ro OLC's Executive Branch"clients, disclosure of this internal work J
pro<iuct would disclose the confidential fact that OLC's legal advice had been i
'
.
I
l'eq~estcd on these topics. In addition, this internal draft work product contain~ .
confidential information provided to OLC in COilllCCtion with a request for legtl
adv,ice. The attorney-client privilege protects such cli~nt confidences. (U)

RiilingAfrer In Camera Revi~: The only documents in this group that require
.

!

excended ~iscussion are 144 and 145. Documents 120/243, 121and122 consist of
inteJllgence information and analysis, or questions about the same; to the extent that t?ere
al'e any re~erences to legal mattersL___

-==i they ai·e inextricably intertwine~
65
!

TOP SECRET/

~---

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =tNOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 16 of 50

TOP SECRET(_ _ _ _

=

with this analysis and cannot reasonably be segregated. There has been no waiver of i
!

exemptions by virtue of the release of the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft

W~ce

·.

I

Paper, or any other public statement that has been brought to the attention of the courj by
I

the AcLu;. Accordingly, Tconclude chat the doc.ument need not be p1oduced, They n~ed
'

!
'

!

not be

pro~uced.
I

;

nJcument 144 consists of a set of draft calking points concerning the legal baJis

~O>CC agairut Al Q•od•. Mo" the dooumont aduaily d= not addt= t h s
~
c--·----~
.
.. _ _ _ _ _ _Jine rest of the document may touch on
it
of

fot Uliing.

~

legality, but

dd,es

.not track the information disclosed in the OLC-DOD Memorandum or the Draft Whi~e

Paper. However, it does touch on matters falling under Listed Fact# 4 of the "officiaI'.ly
I

:

acknowleQ.ged" information as found by the cou1t earlier in this decision. Accordinglr, I
i
conclude that Document 144 should be produced in redacted form. The last paragrapl)
!
I

should be redncted.
Document 145 is an outline ofanalysis ofa possible lethal operation against
Aulaqi.

U~der the hcadin~

I
I

L. _________________ ywever, this court has
concluded that such information need not be produced, albeit only because the Second

Circuit-redacted such information in New York Times. (See supN1., at pages 9-10) In ~ny

!

event, that information (much of which has been publicly disclosed in other documeis)
. i f
is too inextricably intertwined with information as to which there has been no wa1ver\o
!
!
66

TOP SECRET
"--------~-----~

_~

==1NOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 17 of 50

TOP SECRET/j~-~·

-·----~

exemptions by virtue of the release of the OLC-DOD Memorandum and the Draft Whjte

I

Paper to permit it to .be reasonably seg<egated.
That said, there is material here that can be disclosed. Under the heading

"Potential Constitutional Issues," the first bullet point on page 2 is derived directly froin
.

I

.

i

the le.gal analysis as to which exemptions have been waived; with the exception of the/

~ it shoJld
I

last sentence pf that paragraph

.

be produced. The rest of the bullet points under that heading do not address potential :
constitutional issues, but issues about
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -----~those po11ions of the document do not need

tf

be produced.
!

i

Do\:-Uments 146 and 147 need not be pl'oduced; since they are simply 145 with 1
I

I

1

handwritten notes on them, which handwritten notes fall within Exemption (b)(5), and as
.

'

to which there has been no waiver.

(6) Documents Containing J.i'actu11l Information Provided to OLC In

Connection with Requests for Legal Advice (Doc. Nos. 57-74, 76-83, 87-103,
.
106, 110, 114, 117-11.9)
!
i

According to the Government, this category of documents consists of classifie~

factual information provided to OLC in connection with requests fol' legal advice (as o/ell

i

as inter-agency conunents on draft factual excerpts of OLC legal advice, which exce1J)ts
.

I

were derived from classified factual information provided to OLC in connection with ,

.

I

requests for legal advice).
The. Government represents that the documents in this group contain the
underlying factual material on which OLC relied in drafting the February 2010 and J~ly

67
'

i

TOP SECRET

'----~--~~~-~-~~-~

=:}NOFOR~
I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 18 of 50

TOP SECRETL._____

=:fNOFORN. ·

L __
·--·_- -

2010 legal memoranda concerning a contemplated operation against Anwar Aulaqi,I

!
The Second Circuit redacted from the July 2010 OLC-DOD Memorandum (Documenf

I

No. 5) the entire factual background section of that memorandum. See The New Yorkj

Ttmes Co. v. US. Dep 'r ofJustice, 756 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2014) ("We ... recognize th~t
in some circumstances legal analysis could be so intertwined with facts entitled to
protection that disclosure of the analysis would disclose such facts. Aware of that

possibility, we have redacted .. , the entire section of the OLC-DOD Memorandum th,'at

includes any mention of intelligence gathering activities."); Id. at I 15 & 125 (redactirlg

. .

,---------.-.
all of Pait I of OLC-DOD MemorandumJ

~----

I

_J

L__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

; id. at 113 (agre~ing with this

court's conclusions that the OLC-DOD Memorandum "wa.<i properly classified and th~t
I

I

no waiver of any operational details in that document has occurred").

i
1

ln its First Remand Decision, and also in its denial of reconsideration ofthac
decision, this Cou1t recognized that Che Second Circuit "repeatedly rejected any
contention that the prntections ofFOIA Exemptions 1, 3 and 5 had been waived as to:

68

TOP

SECRET~L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =1NOFORN

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 19 of 50

TOP SECRE"f

I~ ...

'-------~--JNorurov
I
I

I

I

operational details ... oi- other intcJJigence information.'; First Remand Decision at

I

Jh 9 ·

see also Onlcr dated December 9, 2014 ("the Court or Appeals has conc!udcd th•t thj •
Government has waived FOIA exemptious only ro the extent of legal analysis" (emph asis

in origi:~l~~·r

___ -

'
1

The Government thus argues that all of the doc'Uments in this category are exeh1pt

for the"'"' reasons that

C ~eally,
•

~~

.

the Govcrnment asserts thot:

I

The documents in this category are exempt under Exemption (b)(1) bcca~sc
they contain currently and properly classified information pei.taining to
;
intelligence sources and methods. The documents contain specific intelligencf

69

!
TOP

SECRET~L__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ :=JNOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 20 of 50

TOP SECRET/' - - - - - - - -

______ =:]Nut

Ul<N

---------,
I

o To the extent the documents contain information derived from human
sources, the l"elease of such information also could place such human
sources at risk and could impede the ClA's ability to obtain time-sensi ive
intelligence and to recruit additional similarly-positioned assets in the \
I
- futnte. (U)

o To the extent. the documents contain information derivr.d from signals

i

I

intelligence, the release of such info1mation also would tend to i-evcal t~e
nature and technical capabilities and limitations of the U.S. governme°it's
signals intelligence. (U)
I
I

0

0

____J

o For all of these reasons, release of these documents could reasonably bp
expected to cat1se damage, including exceptionally grave damage, to I
national security. (U)
•

The documents in this category are exempt under Exemption (b)(3) and the
Nfttioiull Security Act because they would reveal sensitive intelligence sourc~s
70
!;
I

TOP SECRET/.____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =rNOFOR~
I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 21 of 50

TOP SEGRETC

=:JNOF0Rt1
!
!

i

and methods employed by the CIA and the rest of the lnteUigence Communityt
for the ieasons described above. (U)

I

•

•

Some of the documents in this category contain.names or other identifiei-s of dIA
personnel that are exempt from disclosure under l~xemption (b)(3) and the CJA

I

Act. (U)
•

The documents in this category 1u·c e)l'.cmpt under Exemption (b)(S) bccaJse
they are covered by the deliberative process privilege. The fact that these :
documents are in OLC's possession reflects Executive Branch deliberations \
regarding what information is relevant to ~xecutlve Brnnch decisions about th~
j
Disclosing the document~
would reveal that OLC and its Executive Branch clients considei-ed the
information contained in the documents potentially relevant to the decen~inati n

C_ _ ___ ____
,I

____

___j The fact that 0 LC has possession of the particular factual

_

I:

information contained in the documents in this category is therefore protected ~y
the deliberative process privilege. In some of the documents are deliberative for
the additional reason that they consist of answers to specific questions posed b~
OLC regarding factual matters relevant to OLC's advice. (Doc. Nos. 94 and 95~ or
comments on factual excerpts of dr~ft OLC advice, including redlincd commepts
(Doc. Nos. 106 and 114).[
_
.

J

•

i

The documents in this category l\re also exempt under Exemption (b)(5)
1
because they arc covered by the attorney-client prh'ilcgc. The factual
i
information in these documents was provided to OLC by its Executive Bnmch\
clients in confidence and in connection with requests for legal advice. The !
documents therefore are privilege~_attorney-client communications.·

[

_________JA;in, the- ~ttorney-cli ent priv-il-eg_e_p_1_·0-te-c-ts_s_u';c-h~
client confidences. In some of the documents are attorney-client pt·ivileged fot
71

TOP SECRET

!
~~~~-~~~~~-==:tNOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 22 of 50

TOP SECREC_-- -

--~-·~

the additional reason that they consist of answers to specific questions ·posed b~
OLC to its Executive Branch clients regarding factual matters relevant to OL~'s
advice (Doc. Nos. 94 and 95) or client comments on factual excel'pts of draft LC
advice, including redlined comments (Doc. Nos. 106 and 114).

L
•

I

~~~

As to Documcn~ 81 only, the Goverrunent offers an additional reason why it~eed
not be produced:J

L

.

n

contends that this information was compiled for law enforcement purposes, sol
that its disclosure would adversely affect ongoing law enfot·cement pt:oceedin~s
(Exemption 7(A)) The Govemment also argues lhat this document contains 1
information tho disclosul'e of which would present a danger to individuals
i
(Exemption 1(F)) and reasonably could be expected to conscicute (Exemption ~
7(C)) and/or would constitute a clearly established (Exemption 6) invasion of\
personal property.

l

ES{

Ruling: Based on the Government's Vaughn Index description, this court wotld
not have directed in camera re,•iew of any of these documents, for substantially the

.

I
wi~h
I

reasons articulated by the Government. However, most of them appear on the list of
documents

as to which the Second Circuit ordered in camera review. Accordingly,

.

the exception of Documents 69, 72, 80, 81, 82, 87, 91, 92, 94, 101, 103, 106 and 114, lthe

l

documents in this group must be produced for in camera review.

I

As to the documents listed in' the preceding sentence, I conclude that, as to eacfi of

!

them individually, there has been no waiver of these exemptions by virtue of the rclea~e
.

I

.

.

I

of the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other public statement
that has been brought to the attention of the court by the ACLU. Accordingly, and

l
su~ject
i
I

lo the ruling concerning officially acknowledged facts that is applicable to all documebts,
i

I conclude that Documents 69, 72, 80, 81, 82, 87, 91, 92, 94, IOI, 103, 106 and 114
not be produced.

nll ed

·

72

i

l
!

'fOP

SECRETA~--- _ _ _ _ _ _ =1NOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 23 of 50

--------------·--------·

=1NOFOR~

TOP SECRETL

I

i
1

RulingAqer !11 Camera Review: The Government produced the rest of the
documents in this group for in camera review, following which this court declines to

l

i

l

order the release of any of these documents, or any portion thereof, for substantially ti e
reasons

articulal~d by the Government, which are reprinted above. Many, perhaps mo~t,

(or

I

c~~ocumen=am nolliing al~o=i~ but raw inte!li~
as well as assessment of that information, principally about

L

--

the\

--------A large number of these documents, including all those prepared

D

do not mention Aulaqi.L _____________,!let alone deal with

issues comprehended in the FOIA requests. For documents prepru:ed

---------'

'------~ mention of Aulaqi and his role in AQAP become more frequent and m~re
lengthy, as he grows in prominence in connection with AQAP. That is only to be

I

expected. since OLC obtained these documents in the course of its preparation of the

I

j

i
OLC-DOD Memorandum. In particular, Documents 64, 65, 66, 70, 71, 73, 76, 83, 89! 90,

91 and 95 assess,

in

increasing detail as the date becomes later, the rnle of Aulaqi in

AQAP and various of its prior and perceived potential plots .. They contain,

f~r examptc,
I

I

speculation about his involvement iu the Christmas 2009 failed airplane bombing, wh~ch

--·----·

---

They fall wi{hin this comt's rulirig on Listed Fact #6.
'-------'

73

TOP SECRETI'------------_-_-_-_-

I

~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 24 of 50

----------------------TOP SEGRETfL-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~

~iously, that respon e

'------------~--------~

has nothing whatever to do with the FOIA requests presently before the court.

74
!

TOP SECRET~'------

--- ---

-VNOFOR~
____]

I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 25 of 50

TOP

SECRET{·----------~

I

I

_____________ ___jand contains atr.orney-client

L___

1

privileged material that do11s not relate to anything that was waived within the ambit ~f
the Second Circuit's first decision in New York Times. Most of the mate1ial in these

I

documents is of the SOLt that was redacted from the OLCJDOD Memorandum prior to~ its

I

release in accordance with the Second Circuit's ruling in New York Times.
In sum, these documents are exactly what the Govenunent says they are.

1110

i
t~ry

fact that they were given to OLC in connection with the preparation of the OLC-Dod
Memorandum places them within the ambit of Lead Industries Ass'n., Inc., v.

Occuparfonal Safety and Iiealtll Administration, 610 F. 2d 70, 85 (2d Cir. l 979) ·

.

i·

(discussed more fully at page 110, Infra.) As far as this court is concerned, there has

.

I

I

been no waiveL· of exemptions by vil'tue of the release of the OLC-DOD Memorandut,
or the Draft White Paper, or any other public statement that has been brnught to the

!
;

attention of the court by the ACLU. Accordingly, I conclude that the document need *ot
be produced.

[------·-ffiocument Nos. 40, 244-258, 260~65,'268~293)

--------·--

r

---- -------·--- -----75
'

TOP

SECRET~
L__- - - - - - - -

i

--- - - - - - - - -

--,NOFOR~I

__s

I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 26 of 50

--·~.

TOP SECRET(-·

;

!

I
I

l___

Ruling: The Second Circuit allowed the go.vernment to redact from the class1 1ed

OLC index

L __ --·---- -~

See New York Times, 756 F.3d at 123

(permitting complete redaction of entries 244-49, 251-61, 266-68, and all listings afte
271). At the goverrunerit's·request, the Second Circuit also removed from its opinion a

~

reference to[.

j

See td at 123 & n.23

(refen'ing to redaction implementing Second Circtlit's May 28, 201 l order). Since the

Seco~d Circuit has held even che index entl'les relating to these documents need not b~

disclosed, the Government argues that the docum·ents themselves are plainly exempt from
disclosure in their entirety. (SHNF)
.

1'.I

.

.

However, the Second Circuit required the Government to produce the number~,
I

titles and descriptions in the index listings for documents 250, 262-265, ond 269-71, ,nd

directed this court to review those documents in camera as long as the ACLU contested
the applicability of any FOIA exemptions. Id. at 123. While I appreciate that the

__.-·

might have ruled differently had the panel known

~~

_ _._.___

Ci~Lit

_j I'

=~ I have done as commanded and reviewed those documents /11

camera.
76

TOP S E C R E T ! . - - - - - - - - - -

=:JNOFOR~
l

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 27 of 50

------- ---·--------------·-----

TOP SECRET

To shorl-circuit matters,

r agree with the Government, for the reasons stated by
I

the Governmenr, that the documents in this group other than 250, 262-265 and 269-7 ~
need not be produced (with the exception of Document 253, which will be discussed

separately below). The Second Circuit specifically refused to order OLC to produce .
I1

number, title and descriptive information about Documents 252-254 and
ground that!

268~~n
the

--

1

L_________

.JNothing._______

-~ J

provided to the court by the ACLU, broadens the scope of what has been officially ·

I
!

pf
applicable FOIA exemptions indicates that none of these clocuments deals with those two
.
I
acknowledged. OLC's Vaughn Index description of these docilments and its analysis

I

I

I

discrete points.

I

Therefore, as to the documents in this group ocher than those chat have been \
produced for in camera review, all of the exemptions claimed by the Goverrunent

ap~ly

' i

and none of those exemptions has been waived, whether by virtue of the release of th~
\

OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other public statement thit
has been brought tci .(he attention of the court by the ACLU. Accordingly, and S\lbjecrito
the ruling concerning officially acknowledged facts that is applicable to all documenti.
the documents in this group other than Documents
not be pro duce d.

25~, 253, 262-265 and 269-71 nee~
1,'

1

71

TOP SECRETL _ __

_ _ _ _ =1NOFOR~

.

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 28 of 50

TOP

SECRETfL_--_--=._-=_-=-·---=--=--------- =1NOFOR~
I
I

I have specific rulings· about three documents in this grnup: Documents 40, 24r

and 253.
Document No.~

•

1

The document is exempt under Exemption (b)(S) because it is covered by ~he
deliberative process prlvilei:e. The document is predecisional because it was\
78

--------~----_ ~·~

TOP SECRETr.___·

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 29 of 50

~
j

:VOP SECREl"

prepared in connection witC
It
is deliberative because it constitutes advice, views, and legal deliberations usea by
decisionmakers[_________________ ---------.-~
and others who received legal advice during interagency deliberations. Compdlled
disclosure of the document would undermine the deliberative processes of th
government and chill the candid and frank comniunication necessary for effec ivc
governmental decisionmaking. Protecting the document from compelled
'
disclosure is critical to ensuring that Executive Branch attorneys will examine
legal arguments and theories thoroughly, candidly, effectively, and in writing, and
to ensuring.that Executive Branch officials will seek legal advice from OLC a d
the Department of Justice_ on sensitive matters. There has been no official

el

acknowledgement
{'SHNF-)

•

___

=-oJ

The document Is also exempt under Exemption (b)(S) because it is covere1·
by the attorney-client privilege. The document reflects confidential client

communications to OLC and the Department of Justice made for the pur;pose · f
seeking legal advice, and the document also reflects the back-and-forth betwe n
OLC and its Executive Branch clients. As such, the document is also protecte~ by
the attorney-client privilege. (U)
Ruling:

I

il
I

10

See Lewis Ca1Toll, Alice 'J Adventures In Wonderland, "When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said
r111her a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean-- nehhcr more nor less."

79

TOP SECRET'--~~~~~-

--~--- -

1

I
::_]NOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 30 of 50

~... ",..,....n ...
'L------~

TOP SECRETl

I
j

Docum~.~

[

~The

Goverrunent

asse1ts that:

•

Tbe document is exempt under Exemption (b)(l) because,

80

i

TOP SECRET ___~~---~-~~~~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 31 of 50

----·- - - - - - - --·-----·-·------

·--~

TOPSECRH)

'

,--

I

L____________________________. .,. . .

•

The document is exempt under E~ernption (b)(S) bec:mse it is covere
. deliberative process privilege.

•

The document is also exempt under Exemption (b)(S) because it is
the atlorney-client privilege. /

I

--

...___ _ _ _

r

covcre~ bv

----------~not order its produition

now.

I
I

I

81

I'

I
i

TOP SECRET

L---------------

-ia.1r... ..-r.. n a.1 !;
~
I

i

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 32 of 50

TOP SECRET'---------,----~.

Document No. 253·

I

---- ----·---Jfhe Government asserts that:

l.
•

!

This document is exempt under Exemption {b)(S) because it is covered bY, the
deliberative process privilege. The document is predecisional because it
prepared in connection with
It
is deliberative because it consdtutes advice used by decisionmakers, includin
]and others who received le al
advice from the Attorney General during interagency deliberations. CompellTd
disclosure of the document would undermine the deliberative p1·ocesses of the;
go~ernment and chill the candid and frank communication necessary for effcdtive
j
go'.vernmental decisionmaking. Protecting the document from compelle~
disclosure is critical to cnsudng that Executive Branch anorneys will examine!
legal arguments and theories thoroughly, candidly, effectively, and in writing) and
to ·ensuring that Executive Branch officials will seek legal advice frorn OLC ~nd
the Department of Justice on sensitive matters. (U)

wak

c=·

---.

I

•

The document is also exempt under Exemption (b)(S) because it is cover~d
by: the attorney-client privilege. The document reflects confidential client
!
communications to OLC and the Department of Justice made for the purpose 6f
seeking legal advice. The document also l'eflects a back-and-forth between O~C
an~ its Executive Branch clients, and such give-and-take inevitably i·eflects
OLC's view regarding the appropriate legal analysis in the circumstances und,.er
· deliberation, and thus implicitly would reveal legal advice from OLC to chos9
clients. As such, the document is also protected by the attorney-client privilef°.

I

M

1

~

I

I
\

TOP SECRET~

I

~

;

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 33 of 50

-- - - - - ------ ----------- -TOP

SEGRE~L----------------- ~:i

I
Ruling: The Second Circuit did not require the Gover~unent to disclose the
number, title or description of this

1.

docur1:~

~er, to the extent that this

L

j

document :contains the legal advice contained in the OLC-DOD Memorandum, it wo .Id
not be exe/npt from disclosure, assuming

'-----------

could reaspnably be segregated from that legal a~

I

____J

I

So while the Second Circuit did not direct production of this document for jn

I

~---•

camera i-eview, this court orders it produced for that pui·pose.

!

' - - - - - - - - -.. - - - - - · · · - ·

I

83

TOP SECRETC- -

- - --

-- -- -

'-----------------

_:_]NeFeRN-1
I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 34 of 50

--•w•

--------------·-·--·----·--

TOP SECRETC

----~--~~~-~--

=1'NOFORN I

l!

: I

Obviously.. that
I
is not the "l(iew that the Government eventuaily adopted. As such, this predecisional,

l.

deliberati'Ve document,
_ _ _ _ _ ]is exempt under Exemption (b)(5). There has been no waiver of
I
i

'

exemptio~s by virtue of the release of the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft Whrte

.

Cllls_ctn!Y..a~ss

'

!

but l coniectllre cha! the·anachment was prepared!

--- --·---·------

84

I

i

TOP

SECRET~--------- -=:)N0F0RNI

·-~--

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 35 of 50

TOP SECRET~.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~

i
j
Paper, or any other public statement that bas been brought to the attention of the cou~ by

l1

the ACLU. The document need not be p[oduced.

I now rum ID the OLC documents in this group that the Couot of Appeals

ask~d

J

me to review:

Document 250 consists of\

I
Ruling.After Jn Camera Review: The docu1nent is exempt under

Ex~=~t~:~~l-

--

(b )(1) and (b)(S). It is obviously predecisional and deliberative; it is prnbably nttomei
client prh:ileged; and it contains[ _____ - - - - - - - -- -

-ff

~y

the sort redacted

the Second Circuit In New York T;mes l There has been no waiver of exemptions by

'

II
I

virtue of the release of the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or

anyI

'

I

other public statement that has been brought to the anention of the court by the ACL~. It
need not

~e produced.

.

_

I·

Docnmenit 262 consists ofj

RulingAtfer In Camera Review; The

do~umen;~e~~~~~-undei·~~~;~i~ns

r
I

orl

:

(b)(l) and. (b)(S), for the same reasons as Document 250. Thel'e has been no waiver
'
.
i
exemptio:s by virtue of the release of the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft Wh,te
Paper, or any other public statement that has been brought to the attention of the courf by

I
I

the ACLU,. It need not be produced.
85

l

TOP SECRET._____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~

.

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 36 of 50

-------------

r

Docnmcnt 26~

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ J

Ru{ing Afrer In Camera Review: The document is exempt under Exemptions
(b)(l) and!(b)(5), for the same reasons as Docum~t 250. There has been no waivero1
exemptiolljS by virtue of the release of the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft Wh~e

!
Paper, or ~ny other statement that has been made public.
!

Document 264

Ruhng AOer Jn Came1'a Review: The document is exempt under Exemptions
!,

i
I

I

(b)(l) andj(b)(S), for the same reasons as Document 250. There has been no waiver

ol'

e"emptioJs by virtue of the release of the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft Wh te

t~ the attention of the coui , by
the ACLU'. Accordingly, I conclude that the document need not be produced.
!
Documcni 26~

Paper, or dny other public statemem that has been brought

86

TOP SECRC:f(______ _

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 37 of 50

- - - - - - - - - ----------TOP SECRET/

.

RylingAtler In Camera Review: The document is exempt under Ex.emptions
(b){l)

I
'

an~ (b)(S), for the same reasons as Document 250. There has been no waiver ~f
I

exemptions by virtue of the release of the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft Wtte
Paper, or any other public statement that has been b1ought to the attention of the cou~1 by
the ACLU. Accordingly, I conclu~e that the document need not be produced.
l
Documeil.t 269 consists

01

I
(b)(l) an; (b)(5), for the same reason as Document 250. There has been no waiver 01
!

B,ufing Afte1· In Camera Review: The document is exempt undor Exemptions

exemptiofis by virtµe of the release of the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft W,ite
P:iper, or any other public statement that has been brought to the attention of the cou 1t by
the ACLQ'. Accordingly, I conclude that the document need not be produced.

Document 271

87

I
I
i

TOP

SECRET~---------~NOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 38 of 50

·------·

TOP

SECRET~--------~

'

Ru(tngAfler Jn Camera Review: The document is exempt under Exemptions
.

'

(b)(I) and (b)(5), principally as attorney-client pl"ivileges, secondarily because the

anachmcn) is '""a final document, and otherwi>c for the some reason~.

[ __________________Jrherc has been no waiver of exemptions by virte
:

I

of the release of the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other\
public statement that has been brought to the attention of the court by the ACLU.
Accordingly, I conclude that the document need not be produced.
i

Th~s

[

.

I
I

II
I

cou1t has provided sufficient information about the contents of each of these

documon'to!lu~tbc Co~~f-App•:••n "'ortain ~~
redacted .ftbm
the first New York Times opinion, and no new waiver having occurred, this
.
I

.

I

court is qu~te comfortable in concluding that the Second Circuit would not want any of

~~~s_e docur:nents produced.j

~-----~I believe that the Court of Appe~ls would not have wasted this cou1's
time with ~n camera review of these documents had it known

i
j

TOP

SECRET~

..

88

thaC ====J
I
•

!

.:=JNOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 39 of 50

This concludes the court's review of the OLC Classified Vaughn Index and
documents appearing thereon. To summarize: OLC must pl'oduce Documents 46, 144,and

145 with tl)c redactions ordered by this court. Document 50 must be produced in full.

B. Documents Appe«ring on the CIA Vaughn Jndex 11
(1) Documents on the Index
In l?reparing this portion of the decision, the court has relied on the classified

i

·

II

I
1

!

Vaughn Index prepared by the CIA and submitted on November 14, 2014. In additi'o1t to
the documents discussed below, some 77 "documents of interest" to the CIA were

I
I

addressed in the cou1t's discussion of the OLC Vaughn Index.

I

Documcn~ No. 2:

L_

Classified rcport,L

---~---~prepared by the CIA

i

Countmte&orism C.entcri
'

~---

•

Th~ document is exempt under.Exemption (b)(l) because it contains curren, ly

an~ proper!}' classified information pertaining to intelligence soiu:ccs and

I

C_ho-ds_.,_____________ ----~,~] ·
.

I

Since Def~ndants filed their motion for summary judgment on November 14, 20 l4, plaintiffs have !
withdrawn t~cir request for some of the documents identified by CIA and DOD as responsive. Accordipgly,
only those documents 1hat plaintiffs continue to seek are addressed. Those document$ arc set forth on ·age
4 ofplainliffs' memorandum ia support of their motion for piutial summary judgment 1ind in oppositio to
the 111otion for summaiy judgmelll submitted by lhe CIA 8nd DOD, filed December 3, 2014.
12

89

I

TOP SECRET[

·----~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 40 of 50

TOP

SECRET~'---------- ~i

Ttiis document is exempt under Exemption (b)(3) (Nation0l Security Act).
because it would reveal sensitive intelligence sources and methods em loycd ~y ·

•

the CIAj

I
~----~This document also concains names or other identifiers of CIA/

pe~soimel that arc exempt from disclosure under Exemption (b)(3) and the CIA'

~

Ac:t.
I

•

!

•

Although
not noted iu the CIA's initial submissions, this clocument is also1I
.
prbtectcd by the attorney-client privilege and Exemption (b)(S) because i~
coi:isists'

90

TOP SECRET

L..,____ _ _
-

i
I

i

-~---=-·-_--_-·_. ____-=-== =1NOFORNI

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 41 of 50

1NOFORN

TOP SECRET/.

.

I

I
i

I·.

l<,J1li11&. Thert~ has been no waiver of these exemptions

1

by virtue of the release :of

che OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft \Vhite Paper, or any other public statemenJ
'

that has been brought to the attention of thr. court hy the ACLU. Accordingly, and sub~ect
to the ruling couccrning officially acknowlcdgcd facts that is applicable to all documcr1ts,
1

I conclude that 1hc document need not be produced. I specifically n(>te that this exact

I

type of"intclligencc:: gathering" information was redacted from the OLC-DOD
Memorandum by the Second Circuit
Document No. 3: This document consists of two separate finished CIA intelligence

products

I

•

These h1tclligence products l\l'e exempt under Exemption (h)(l) bccftuse
wntain currently und properly classified information

t~oy

91

TOP SEGRE-"f/

·i
INOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 42 of 50

•

T!iis docv:ncnt is exempt u11dwE.xemprion (b)(3) (N11tional 8f'eurity Act)'
hccaus~ it wou:d :·:veul scnsi1ive mtelligrncc sources and pwthods employed
:he Ci,\
This document also cc>ntains
name:; o~· othi;:; identifiers nf CJA rc1s,•nncl thflt arc exempt from disclosure ut\der
En:rnption (h)1.. \) :iud !lw CIA Mt. {TS/'l'l·f-')

by

This do1:m111'.nt ts proteetcd !Jr the attorney-client privik~:,c an<l Exemption
(!J)(:i) ll1:rnuse ii con~;;sts

Ru.!ir1Zc~ There ha' been LO waiver ofth~sc exemptions by v,rtue of \he rdcdS~ of

thr OLC-DUD ;.,fr!l1Qr;):i.durn, _...,!. t'.ic Draft \Vhitc l'<1p::r,

1.hat ha:·. \'··::a btou&}:t tu the alte'.~tlon ufth:::

info: m:«tw11

Wit"

<)l'

any othv; puhl:c statcmt:nt
i

c0t.1\

by the ACLU. At:.rndinp,;y. and subject

n.:da.:tcd "rn;n the OLC-DOD .tvkmorandu·n by the Second Circuit.

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 43 of 50

rNOFORN

-+GP SECRET/

•

The document is exempt under Excmptio11 (b)(l) becnuse it cuntains cune~tly
end prnpcrly classified info1mation

•

This document is exemrit untlcr Kxcm.ption (b)(3) (National Security A. ct).!
bccttusc it would reveal scnsidvc intdligence sources an_cl mt"thods employed

h

the CIA.

•

This document is protected by the dclibenitive process privilege l\Dd
Exemption (b)(S) because

B.Yl!!Jg;_
;•

93

'

TOP SECRET/

INOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 44 of 50

TOP SECRET

------~

.______ _ _ - - - - - -

I

I

94

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 45 of 50

TOP SECRET1'---------

--~

..

I

'

:

I

L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------~

o~ the
I
release of the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other publ\c
I thus conclude that there haS been no waiver of these exemptions by virn1e

I

statement that has been brought to the attention of the court by the ACLU.

i

L

Accordingl . ,

and subject to the ruling concerning specific facts that is applicable to all documents) I
conclude that this document need not be produced. I further note. thal this exact typejof
"intelligence gathe1ing" information was redacted from the OLC-DOD Memorandut by
the Second Circuit.

95

i

I

TOP

SECRET~~-------~---=1NOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 46 of 50

---··----- - - · - · - - - - - · TOP

SECRETf~-~-- --------- ~
. I

I
Docume11t No. 14: Classified memorand,

The Government asserts that:

•

The document is exempt under Exemption (h)(l) becl\usc it conwins curre~tly
and properly classified informarionl

•

This document is exempt under Exemption (b)(3) (NationRI Security Act);
because it would reveal sensitive intelligence sources and methods employed by

th~

L ___ - - - - - - - - - · - - - - - - - - -----~-• This document is protected by the 1tttorney-client privilege and Exempti n
(b)(S) bee1tusc it consists of communications betWecnL_

96

:

l
I

TOP

SEGRE~

_______ =rNOFOR~
i

I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 47 of 50

JoroRi

TOP SECRETtC
~~~--~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

This document is protected by tbe deliberative process pa·Mlcgc and
i
Exemption (b)(S) because represents an inteiim stage in inter-agency discusrons
preceding a government decision on a litigation matter in the civil _case descr~bed

•

[
•

!

i

I

This document is protected by the attorney work-product pri'Vilege ftnd I
Exemption (b)(S) because it was p1·epared in reasonable anticipation of lilig~ion
~<?scr~bed abo_ve, and wo_!!ld reveal the attorneys' mental
I. .

~

L_.

Ruling: This document is exempt from disclosure because it is attorney wor~

product P''eP"'cd in roasonable anticipotion oflilig•tion. The.othc. exomptions need rot
even be considered. There has been no waiver of the applicable exemption by viltue
the release of the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other

pf

p~1blic
;

statement that has been brought to the attention of the court by the ACLU.

I

Document No. 15: Classified memorandum

97

TOP SECRET.'------------

~NOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 48 of 50

- - - =1NOFOR~I

TOP SECRET/

-------~The

!

I

Government asse11s that:

•

The document is exempt under E_x.emption (b )(1) because it c.ontains cune tl
and properly classified information

·------------------- - - - - - - - - T~is document is exempt unde.- Exemption {b)(3) (National Security Act);
bc·cause it would reveal sensitive intelligence sources and methods. cm lo ed b
theCIA ..

--------,-~

•

~-------

This document also
contains names -o-r-ot_h_e_r-ld_e_n_ti_fi_e1-·s_o_f_C_l_A_p_e_rs_o_n_n_c_lt-h-a~tare exempt from

I

c--

disclosure under Exemption (b)(3) and the ClA Act.

•

r-L___

\

j.

Tijis document is protected by the deliberative process pri-vilege :u,-.-1d_ _ _ _-.
Exemption (b)(S) because it reflects a pre-decisional communication/

I
I

98

TOP

iI

SECRET----------~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 49 of 50

---------------------

---~I

TOP SECRET/~L-----

I

I
!

•

This document is protected by the pi-csidentiaJ communications privilegi and

l~"°"Jb)(S) bo<aUS< it<efiects a communicotionJ ____________.
Ruling: There ha~ been no

I

~aiver of these exemptions by vhtue of the releaJe of

-

i

the OLC~DOD Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any othei· public stateme~t

that has

b~en brought to the attention of the couit by the ACLU_ Accordingly, and sibject
I

to the ruling concerning officially acknowledged facts that is applicable to all doc,ents,

I _conclud_e that the document need not be produced.

,

Documen; No. 22: Classified In Camera, Ex Parle Declaration

a~d

Formal Claim

J

State Secrets Privilege and Statutory Privileges from Leon E. Panetta, CIA Director,
dated 23 September 2010, discussing the specific types of classified information o-ve' (

which the CIA Director asse1ted the state secrets pdvilegeJ
~--

I
Portions of this document have been releasedlto
- - - - - - -------·----- - - - - ------ - - 1- - - I
plaintiffs;

The Govenunent asserts that:
•

Tbe withheld portions of the docuincn t al'e exempt under Exemption (b) 1)
~ecause they contain _currently and properly classified information!

IThe document also includes detailed
classifi-ed intelligence reportiog_o_n_A_u_la-q~i. Disclosure of this information wquld
99

I

TOP SECRET ' - - - - - - - - -

~------ =1NOFOR~

-----

I

I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 50 of 50

TOP

SECRET~'------------=:)NOFORN

tend to reveal the sources and the methods involved in the collection, as well as
th~ extent or limitations of the United States' knowledge of Aulaqi's activitids and
.
I
associates. Revealing this infonnation would compromise the human assets fnd
the technical collection methods used to obtain specific intelligence. Releasd of
this information could i·easonably be expected to cause damage, inc~din~_
I exceptio~ave damage, to national security. ~--- ---~--~
•

The withheld portions of the document are exempt under Exemption (b) 3)
(National Security Act) because they woold reveal sensitive intelli ence so 1rces
and methods employed by the CIAJ

,~-·

~ There has been no waiver of these exemptions by virtue of the releru:ie of
.

I

the OLC_j;°OD Mem~randum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other public statemett
that has been brought to the attention of the court by the ACLU. Accordingly, and s~bject

. to the •ullng cooceming officially aeknow!Cdged tacts that is appllcable to ati docu1•111s,
I conclude that the document need not be produced.

Docunicnt No. 3J: Classified memorandum,/

100

i
I

TOP SECRET/A'-._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

l
=:)NOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 1 of 39

TOP SECRET/r·-------

--~
i
!

r

I

rody

The Govemment asserts that:

" The document is cxcJDpt under Exemption (b)(l) because it contains cundntly
cl=lfied ;nfounation/

•

This document is exempt under Exemption (b)(3) (National Sccuri Act
b1;causc it would reveal sensitive intelligence sources and methods
This do._c_u_m-en_t_a~s__,o
~~~·~~~~~~~-~~~-~~--~

contains names or other identifiers of CIA personnel that are exempt from
disclosure under Exemption {b){3) and the CIA Act. (TSlR'ff)

•

This document is protected b the deliberative rocess privilc c nnd
E~emption

(b)(5) because

~--_J It is therefore predecisional and deliberative. (TSH~ff)

i

&J.tng;_ There has been no waiver of these exemptions by virtue of the releaf of

.

.

.

l

the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other public stateme1t

101

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 39

fOP SECRETtC ___________ =1NOFOR~

that has been brought to_ the attention of the couit by the ACLU. Accordingly, and su ject
to the ruling concerning officially acknowledged facts that is applicable to a!J docum nts,
I conclude that the document need not be produced.

Document No. 34; Classified memorandum,[

:The

____J

Government asserts that:

I
•

The document is exempt under Exemption (b)(l) because it contains currel tly
and pro erly classified info1·ma1ioor-

•

Tl~is document is exempt under Exemption {b)(3) (National Security Actj
b~causc it would reveal sensitive intelligence sources and methods employe by

!

1 _theC!A,J·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~---,-~102

;

i

I

TOP

SECRET~'------------- =1NOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 3 of 39

-------·---TOP SECRET/.____ _ _ -----~NOFORN
··---- - - -

L_
•

I

I

T~is document is protected by the dclibe•·Rtive process privilege and
Exemption (b)(5} because it reflects a pre-decisional communication that
represents an interim stage in inter-agency discussions preceding a final decislon

·I

I

I

Ruling: There has been no waiver of these exemptions by virtue of the releasp of
the OLC-POD Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other public statcmerlt
.
.
I .
!

.that has b;en brought to the attention of the court by the ACLU. Accordingly, and su,ject

to the ruliµg concerning officially acknowledged facts that is applicable to all documfnts,
.
j
I conclude that the document need not be produced.
I
Documerit No. 35: Classified memorandum

103

.

I

TOP SECRET L - - - - - - - - - - · · · .=JNOFORN\

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 4 of 39

·--------------------·

TOP SECRETA'------------ =1NOFOR~

I
including. two artachments

'----~-----_J' The Govenunent asserts that:
I

0

T~c document is exempt under Exemption (b)(I) because it contains curr9ntly

a 'd properly classified infonnatio

•

Tltis document is exempt under Exemption (b)(3) (National Security Act)
b~cause it would reveal sensitive intelligence sources and methods employe~ by
1
th CIA.

•

T~iis document is protected by the deliberative process privilege and
E~cmption (b)(S) because it represents an interim stage in in_te_r_-a-"gen'---c--"y_ _,__
di: cussions preceding a final decision

J

104

·-

-.I

TO~SECRETt=.~--~~------~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 5 of 39

-----------------TOP

SECRET======~:-------~

L~,ling.- The>< has .been no waive<

of these exemptions by viltue of the releosf of

the OLC-~OD Memorandum, or the D1·aft White Paper, or any other public statemelt
that has been brought to the attention of the court by the ACLU. Accordingly, and suf~ect

to the

'"lifg concerning official! y 11<'.know!cdgod facts that is appUcahle to "11 doouin nls,

I concludd that the document need not be produced.
j

.

I

j

Docum~. 36: Classified memorandum.\

---~1

I

!The Government asserts that:

• Tlle Government asserts that this document is exempt under Exemption
I

.

(b)(I) be~

•

T~e Government also nsserts that this document is excmp.t_un~er E_xemp ion
(b)(3) (National Security Act) becfluse it would reveal sens1t1ve mtelbgence

i
I

1

105

)

I

TOP SECRET L-.....---~------=:JNOFORN\

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 6 of 39

TOP SECRET/.____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~
s~urces and methods employed by the c~-- - -

•

I

~nd the Government asserts that this document is protected by tl~~­
dflibcrativc process prMlege and Exemption (b)(S) because it re

rcscn~s:an

iqterim stage in inter-agency discussion~
The communication represents a pre-decisional sta\ge in t c
d 1 cision-making process.\
----------

R~ltng:

There has been no waivei· of these exemptions by vhtue of the relealfe of

I

I

,

the OLC1DOD Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other public stateme~t
;

that has

I

~een brought to the attention of the court by the ACLU. Accordingly, and s~bjcct

to the ruling concerning officially acknowledged facts that is applicable to all doclcnts,
I conclude that the document need not be produced. .

I
i

Docume~ 45:

Classified

I

i

facsimil~ communicati~

~·

i

The Oovemment

I
I

asserts th~t.
i

• \

~· doenmont is exempt under Exomp~ - - - - - - . - 106
l

\

TOP SECRET/L----..,.---·----- ==tNOFORN

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 7 of 39

TOP SECRET

-----~--~-- ---------~

"

---1
·--

-----·-·

.

i
I

To the extent that Exemption {b)(I) applieS, the Government claims the
do~curnent is also exempt under Exemption (b)(3) (Natlor1al Security Act)
be~ause it would reveal sensitive intelligence sources and methods employed by

I th~ CIAj

•

Fiitally, the Govc-rament claims that the document is protected in full by the
dehbcrative process privilege and Exemption {b)(S) because it represents a.n
inf,erim stage in in_~er-ag~~:! discussionsj

I ,
co

[

I The communication represents a draft l Wt
rised pa1t of the back and fo1th of the decision-making process.

I

I
I

-

~
RtllingAfler In Camera Review: Especially in view of the fact that portions o

1his docuti;lent are no longer classified, I directed the CIA to produce this document fi. r in
. j

I

camera rcjview. After review, I conclude that the document is exempt under all three

!

.

'

i

cxemptiorls, for the reasons EU1iculated by the Government. There has been no waivef· of
!
!
.

.

I

these exerhptions by vhtue of the release of the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft

107

TOP SECRET/.____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 8 of 39

TOP SECRETl[_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =1N_OFORN

I

White P:per, or any other public statement that has been brought to the attention of

the

court by ~he ACLU. The _document need not be produced.

I

---

Docu~t No. 59: Memorandunil

The
documen~

B, has

was originally classified TOP SECRET, although the draft white paper, at Tab

no~ been released publicly, and the remaining attachments no longer contain·.

classified information. (U) The Govemrnent asserts that:
;

I

.
.

I

• Tpe document is exempt In full under- the deliberative process privilege ~nd
,xcmption (b)(S) because it constitutes a predecisional options paper preserted
1
I

.

WB

I
;

I

TOP SECRET/

I

=1NOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 9 of 39

TOP SECRET~

'-----

-------- ------ --------------- -------

·---~:

II
l

t~ SUJ')Criors as part of a deliberative or~

--~'As a result, there has been no waive1· of the exemption - thoucli
ttje cou1t fails ro see how disclosure of this document would baim national' l.
s~cutit)• 01· much of anything else. Nonetheless, the exemption applies. (U)' /
'
J

I

I

'

RqlingAfler ln Camera Review; In [he May 13, 2015 draft of this opinion th~t

was '."b~d fo• sccudty .eview•. the cou•t ruled th•t the document "in full" could tt
possibly ~e exempt under Exemption (b)(5), because Tab B (the draft White Paper) ?ad
already b~en released publicly, the Second Circuit having concJuded \hatFOIA

exemptio~s applicable to it had been waived. That being so, the CIA was.directed to I

re
i.

produce t~e entire document, including all attaclunents, for in camera inspection by
:

I

i

Court.

I

CIA did produce the document - or at least most of it. It also produced a letter,

which is Jskcd the court to accept as a "supplement" to its description of this docunJnt

on the ox
four

~rre Vaughn Index: CIA announced that it had treated ~over memo ant
the

the

attac~ments thereto as a single document when assessing FOIA exemptions, on the

ground

t+c

the fact that patticular attaclunents had been selected and included in the

I

transmission under cover of the covering memo constituted a core part ofthe dclibed.tive
'

.

. I

process. Roc this p«>pos;tion ;i cited Lead l•dustdos Ass 'n Inc. v. Occupational Safi+

I

and Healt,h Administration. 610 F. 2d 70, 85 {2d Cir. 1979).
I

J

I
I
.

l

I

TOP

skcRET

I

II

109

I

I

· · -·

YoroRN

I
I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 10 of 39
--· - - - · - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOP SECRE"f/

~-----

----------

-~
I

i

T~b B has already been disclosed to the public. Considering ~imply the text <if
Tab C, without regard to the fact that it is an attachment to a different memorandum,!
FOIA exJmptions have been waived, for the same reason that they were waived wit~

I

·

I

regard to ;Tab B. The fact that Tab C is a draft is of no moment; so is Tab B, the Draft
'

White Pa~er, which was obtained by NBC News in Febi-uary 2013. Both set forth

th~
'

'

110

\

I

__J, .. ....,, '"''"j
"FOP. SECRET/...._____ _ _ _ _ ~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 11 of 39

4=BP-SEC-RFF/

'NOFOR~

legal framework fot targeting U.S. citizens who :ire engaged in ttmorist activities;

i

'--

It .js ironic that this cou11 is spending any rime on this doc,iment at all ,

so'. the cover r11t:morandum is not responsive to the FOIA reque.c;t. Were it
responsiv~ to the FOIA request it would be subject to the deliberative ptivilege

(Exemptipn (b)(5)) and would not have to be produced. Similarly, the list of ics
I

attachments 1emains subject to the deliberative privilege, as artie;ulated in Lead

Industries.
I

T~b C, like Tab B, is another matter, however; there is nc. reason why this

docurneni should not be produced, since there is absolutely no FUIA privilege

oppU>10n~nt to it th>t hM not boon w.Uvod. 1M $0id, the documrnt •hould be p«><lucl

~;~e-;~ve)~1e:i~~o~:c:~in abritfsunimary ofTab D, the:
redacted

fr~tn the 11e1 s1on of the cover memo provided to the coun \iy tfie Go\·ernment.

, that has bcJn

\
I
'

111

\

i

TOP SECRETt

rNOFORN

1
1

I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 12 of 39

--~
!

I

simply as what it is-r-______ -

._J" -- w;1hor
any reference to the fact that it is an attachment to anything else. Releasing the docutent
in this way will not reveal anything about any deliberations in which i.t may have bedn
!
. i
used. Taf C is completely segregable from.the rest of the document, including from

reference~ to the fact that it was attached to another document and was reviewed dur ng a
I

deliberati~e process. It must be produced.

.

I

:
DocumeJt No. 61: Classified memorandum,

Document 61 also attaches a

p~p

r

-----:-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------~-.
~

L__ _ ---.- - -----

•

[The G;;errunen~ass~;s that: -

----

\
!

T~e document is exempt u~der Exemptiou (b)(l) because it contains cun~ntly
aqd pr~!lerly class~~~ informS!io~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 13 of 39

TOP SECRET~========-·-==~-------_-_-=:fNoroR~
-

.

I

l
'

L______

---

-----

I

-----------

··-__J

•

This document is exempt under Exemption (b)(3) (Natioual Security AcJnd
CIA Act) becaus~ it would reveal sensitive intelligence sources and methods[
e_n)ployed by the CIA as well as the names or other identifiers of ClA oersoimc:I

•

This document is pl'otected by the deliberative process privilege nnd
Exemption (b)(S) because it reflects a pl'e-decisional, deliberative
cohununication
-------'-------.

~---i

•

I

[_
•

!

.

T~is document is protected by the prcsidcntinl communications rivilc e and
Exemption (b)(S) bccnusc it reflects a communicatior

-----------

·---·-···

This document is protected by the attorney-client privilc c and Exem ti n
(~~e~!'us~ it_r~fl~~ts confidential communications
L___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .____ - - - - -

113

TOP SECRET[ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ :=JNOFOR~
\

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 14 of 39

-----·--·----·--------TOP SECRET/

~~~~~~-

=::)NOFORN,I
I

R~ling: There has been no waiver of these exemptions by vhtue of the rele~e of
I

the

'

OLC~DOD Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other public statem+t

tho< has

~ broUght to tho attontion of the court by the ACLU. Accmdingly, and .,bjcct

to the ruling concerning officially acknowledged facts that is applicable to all docu'lents,
I conclude that the document need

~ot be produced.

I

Documc~t No. 62: Classified memoran~~

'------_J The document

has clas.sified attachmentsj

114

TOP

SECRET/L----------~

·

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 15 of 39

~

TOP SECRET/

------]The Govemme~t
asserts tliat:
•

The document is exempt uodcr Exemption Cb)(l)r---

r

•

I
To the extent that Exemption (b)(I) applies, this document is also exempt
under Exemption {b)(3) (National Security Act) because it would reveal

sensitive intelligence sources and methods employed by the ~-·--•

•

I
_J

This document is protected by the dcliberHt'ive process privilege and
Exemption (b)(S) because it represents at1 inte1·im stage in inter-agency
discussions preceding a flnal decision!

Tjlis document is also protected by the attol·ney-client and attomcy worl
product privilc~cs and Excmptio•! 5 becnusc the materials retlect
·
I

•

•

commumcauons:

I .

•

l_

The document is also exempt in full under presidential communications '
privilege 1md Exemption (b)(S) because it reflects a communication

l
TOP

-~
SEC~E'f

---1

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 16 of 39

-----~

TOP SECRET/
'----------

·----

,

.I

J
I

I

L

II

Ruling: There has been no waiver of these exemptions by virtue of t~e relele of

the OLC~DOD Memorandum, or d1e Draft White Papet,

01·

any other public statemert

that has *een brought to the attention of the cou1t b~ the ACLU. Ace ordingly, and SI bject
to the ruling concerning officially acknowledged facts that is applicable to all docun ents,

I conclude that the document need not be produced.
Document No. 78: Draft classified background paper with handwritten notations

The Oov~rnment asserts that:

•

The document is exem t under Exem tiDu b)(1) bccaus cJ

•

Tbis document is exempt under Exemption (b)(3) (Natio nal Security Ad
b~cause it would 1·eveal sensitive intelligence sources and m ethods employee by

th'.e CIA_j

116
!

TOP SECRET.L-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =1NOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 17 of 39

TOP SECRET/j~--------- =1NorOHf11

I

C _____
•

--- ---- ____ L

This document is protected by the deliberative process privilege l\nd
Exemption (b)(S) because it is a d~aft document that re_p!~cnts an inte~im st ,ge
in inter-agency discussions preceding a final decision!

C._ _ _

---r--'

RulingAfler In Camera Review: In its May 13 draft of this opinion, the cow1
concluded that the document was likely exemp1, principally because it is a p~isio~al
draft, and \there is no indication that this document was ever finally approved

[=.J The issue

that remained was whether there had been a waiver by virtue ofrhc

release of the Draft White Paper (which was also a draft) and the public statements.

3be

CJA was directed to produce this documenr--

]
I

--~\t~ the comt for in camera review.
The cou1t has reviewed the document.\

iI
117

TOP

SECRET/\~---- ______ . --- ----- .. =JNOFOR~

I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 18 of 39

TOP SECRET/,____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =rNOFOR~

I

A• l •u•pected, the document i•

.,...,q,i undO. Exemption (b)(5). Tl=e has fcen

no waiver of the exemption by virtue of the release of the OLC-DOD Memorandu1. or

the Draft White Paper, or any other public statement that has been brought to the
attention of the court by the ACLU. The doc;:ument need not be disclosed
I

Docum~.nt No. 94:

Classified draft outlin~

The Government asserts that:

•

lihc document is cxelnpt under Exemption (b)(l)

~

becaus~

- I

I

I

I

Ii

T~is document is exempt under Excmptio11 (b)(3) (National Security ~J and

I

•

CIA Act) because it would reveal sensitive intelligence sources and method
e$ployod by the CIA, " well os the nam"' o<atbe< identifion of CIA perao el.

I

I
I

-·----~----------

------~------'

118
I

I

TOPSECRETc=~~~--~~~~~~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 19 of 39

TOP SECRET/~--------------- =:)NOFORN.
I

• This document is protected by the deliberative process privilege nnd
Exemption (b)(S) because it is a draft document that represents an interim s
Lmeding •final decWo.J

----

I
e

----- -------..----"

Ruling: There has been no waiver of these exemptions by virtue of the relear of

the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other public statement
thet hes b_een bwught to the attention of the court by che ACLU. Accordingly, and +ject

to the rul:ng concerning officially acknowledged facts that is applicable to all doctilents,

l conclud'e that the document need not be produced.

·

I

I

L ____

he. Government asserts that:

•

The document is exempt under Exemption (b){l) bccam1e

•

This document exempt under Exemption (b)(3) (National Sccu.-ity Act and
t1ie CIA Act) b ecAnsc it would reveal sensitive intelligence sources and met· ods
etjiployed by the CIA, as well as the names and othe1· identifiers of CIA

is

p~rsonnel. L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

------..---'

119

I

TOP SECRET _ ____,__ _ _ _ _ _ _

=:JNOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 20 of 39

---~

TOP SECRET/

•

Although not noted in the CIA's Initial submissions, portions of this
document R'te also exempt undel' the deliberative process and attomey-cl ent
privileges and Exemption 5 because

--

·------·····----

----·-~·--

--·----

Ruling: ;hem has been no waiver of these exemptions by viitue of the releasi of

the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft White Pape<, "' ony other public statemef
that has been brought to the attention of the court by the ACLU. Accordingly, and sutject
to the ruling concerning officially acknowledged facts that is applicable to all documfnts,.
'

I conclude that the document need not be produced.
Document No. 96: Classified document

I

L

---~-~

_T_h_e_G_o_v_e_rn_m_e_n_t_a_ss-e-11s_th_a_t_:

- - -

•

The document is exempt under Exemption .{b)(l) because

--------------

120

I

TOPSECRETL_~~~~~~~~~~==1NOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 21 of 39

TOP SECRET{'----------~

•

l _ _ _ _- ,- - - -'
This document is exempt under Exemption (b)(3) (National Security Acj and
the. CI,A. Act) because it would reveal sensitive intelligence sources a11d me hods
c'.mployed by the CIA, as well as the names or other identifiers of CIA
el.

I

I

•

Although not noted in the CIA's initial submissions, portions of this . j
document· are also exempt undcl' the deliberative process and attorne -o~ient
p:rivilcgcs and Exemption 5 bee~

Il
Ruling:!

Otherwise, subject to the rnling concerning officially acknowledged facts that is

!

applicable to all documents, I conclude that the document need not be produced, Thf
I

:

I

CIA must ei"ther provide the document for an in camera inspection or provide the coi.ln
with a

s\~om
representation that the document contains no legal advice as set fmth i~ ( 1)
I
.
!

.and (2) ·above.

121

TOP SECRET,'

L___ _ _ _ __

_ _ _ =1NOFORNi
!

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 22 of 39

--~

TOP SECRET~'------

S::-1pplement to Ruli~g: The CIA did not produce this document for in earner

inspection. As of the time of!his writing, the CIA has not provided 1he court with t?e

representatio~ that was orde1·ed in the alternative.

sworn

I

Documents Nos. 105, 106 and 107: These documents each include a classified

I

docume~tj

I

f

he Government

.

that:

•

a_~serts
I

Tliese documents are exempt under Exemption (b)(1) because they conta'n
c$rrently and propedy classified informatiorf ·- ~------ -

c=__________

----r--'

'

122

TOP SECRETl\____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =1NOFORN
1

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 23 of 39

TOP SECRET/
~------

I

=1NOFORN;

I

•

For the same reasons, these documents are 11lso exempt under Excmptio~
(b)(3) (National Security Act) because they contain information et1ainin t

intelligence sources and methods.I

___

/These documents also contain names or other identifiers ofCfjA
personnel that are exempt from disclosure under Exemption (b)(3) and the qrA
Act.

J

=1

-

I

.

R-u/lng: There has been no waiver of these exemptions, eirher by the release o the

lhat have been brought to the attention of the court.

C_ ____

not be produced. .
Document No. 109: Classified internal

fhey teed
·

au~

SECRET/~------

1 23

TOP

J

_____

~

I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 24 of 39

TOP

SECRET1~---------~

I

[

1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___Jr:;:;Govemmont "'"'": thato

•

This document is exempt under Exemption (b)(l) bec11.use it contains cu ently
and properly classified informati~~

•

This document is exempt under Exemption (b)(3) (NationKI Security Act)
b,ccausc, for the reasons discussed above, it contains information pert11ini1{g o
-i~telligence sources, methods and activities.

---

This document also contains names or other identifiers of CIA

.

PfISOnnel that are exempt from disclosure under Exemption (b)(3) and tb;e ~IA
Act.

•

I'

This document is exempt under Exemption (b)(S) because i~ is protected ~y the
d~liberative process privilege. It is predccisi_onal and deliberative because:it ~s an
iriiernal, peI"sonal outline

124

TOP SECRET~L----- _ _ _ _ _ _ =1NOFORN\

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 25 of 39

~

+OP SECRET/

I

. treI

Ruling Afler In Camera Review: The court was initially unable to tell from
inf01mation provided whether the above exemptions had been waived, or whether

relevant pot1ions of the document were segregable.. The CIA was directed to produce the

!

document for in camera review, specifically indicating any p011ions of the documen' that

I

a.re unclassified.
After reviewing the document, I conclude that, with certain redactions,
documen~

thel

I.

must be produced,
I

I

I start with the first two pages, which spC'cifically addre~s Aulaqi. The
Governm;ent's invocation of Exemption (b)(l) rests principally[

I

J

..

r--=1bj.it these are easily excised from the document, by (l) redacting the bullet pJint
on page l thot begins with the wurosL ~ _j(2J redacting the phrnse bcginnin1
with the ~ords[

lin the bullet point on page 2 that begins with the wordr

L__

~ (3) redacting the first sentence of the nex:t bullet point,.'!

which begins with the words

The rest of the first two pages

.

this

tf
I

doc~~ent consists ofi~format.ion about the l~gality of the Aulaqf ~-p~ratio.n thati's

already m the public domam, by virtue of the val'1011s speeches of Admm1strat1on
;

members, by virtue of the leaking of the Draft White Paper, and by virtue of the Site; nd
Circuit's ;decision that portions of the

OLC-D~D Memorandum had to be released,. ahd

chat the f~ct that Aulaqi was killed in Yemen was a matter of public knowledge. Tha
· information is encirely segregable
~---

.

J

The Oovenunent makos several misstat:Umts in its justifioation fo< >dying

ExemptiQn (b)(3). The first two pages of this

t•

~ocumeni do not disclose any informatton

125

!

I
I

TOP SECRET

=1NOFORN

i
I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 26 of 39

--·=-------=-------==---·-_-_-_-_-_- ==:}NOFORM.

TOP SECRET{.__·

regarding sources. No names of ClA personnel appear anywhere in this document; ( e.

ab~olutelt no indication

~Thereis

011

1

the document that it is predecisional (indeed, it is talkingi

points about the legality of an operation that has already taken place) or a draft of an
sort, let

a~one a discussion draft.

I

The thirCl page of the document addrcssesJ
~---~

------------·-···----Thcrefot~, and foUowing the Sooond Cit<uit in New York Times, the coutt conclud;s,tl>at
the Government need not disclose this infol'mation.

1

The last bullet point on page 3 of this document addresses

IAs to that information, t?erie
has been

ro ''•aiver of these exemptions by virtue of the release of the OLC-DOD :

· Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper,

01·

any other public statement that has been I

brought to the attention of the court by the ACLU. Nor has anything on that subject

I
leen

officially acknowledged. That bullet point must be redacted in its entirety; it need no be

.I .

disclosed:

· ,

I

Subject to the specific ted•ctions ottlcted by the court, the reSt Of·this documft

I

should be disclosed.

126

TOP SECRETIL_.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I
I

II

_yeFSRNI

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 27 of 39

Document No. 110: Classified draft memorandum

.--------------------------- --

---~---~-

The Oovernmen( asserts that:
•

This

docu~cnt

is exempt under Exemption (b)(l) because

-

•

'

I

This document is exempt under Exemption (b)(3) (National Security Act)
bi:c11use, (or the reasons discussed above, it contains information concemirig
Intelligence sources and methods.

This document also contains names or other identifiers of CIA
I
p~rsonnel that are exempt from disclosure under Exemption (b)(3) and the <fIA

'--~----

A~t.

•

I

.
.
This document is exempt under Exemption (b)(S) because it is protected l),y the
dolibel'ative pro~ess and attorney-client privileges. It is protected by the
i
dClib.,,ative prnms p>ivilege becau"' it is P"'decisional, "it is a d<aft

I

127

TOP SECRET

I

L--...-----------~- =1NOFORNI

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 28 of 39

TOP SECRET/fl--·_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =1NOFORN";

I
I

rc;commendation (which contains tracked changes) to a decisiorunaker regar ing
dyliberative, in that it provides a recommended course of ac,.,,ti,,,,o""'n-"-fi"'r'--"'-',..,,,"""._...,...,....__,
in the decisiorunakin rocess.

I

' - - - - - - - - - _ . , The confidentiality of this draft communication was
~.aintained an~ the contents of this document were not shared beyond the
j
interested parties.
~
'

I

1

Ruling: There has been no waiver of these exemptions by virtue· of the releasr of
th.e

OLC~.DOD

Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any mher public statcnie

r

that has been brought to the attention of the coutt by the ACLU. Accordingly, and sJbject
j

.

I
1

to the ruling concerning officially acknowledged facts that is applicable to all doculents,
I conclude that the document need not be produced

I

Document No. lll: Classified background pape1

'

________IThe Government assorts that:
•

.

.

I

This document is exempt under Exemption (b)(l) be<:_a.11~~-t!_~~ntams_~~~~ptly
aJd properly classified information!

128

\
I

!

TOP SECRET L - - - - - - - - - - - ~NOFORN \

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 29 of 39

TOP SECRET

.

•

.

I

For the same reasons, this document is exempt undcl" Exemption (b)(3j
(Nationnl Securi Act) because it would reveal intelli ence sources and I
methods.-

This document 'alfo
concains names or other identifiers of CIA personnel that are exe1J:1Et from
disclosure under Exemption (b)(3) and the CIA Act. [

i ,_

J

: I

'. I

i I

This document is exem"[>t under Exemption (b)(S) because it is protccte l1y the
deliberntive process pri~---~-

•

I
I

[?.uling: There has been no waiver of these e)(emptions by virtue of the relebsb of

·

l

-

!

I
I

the OLC-DOD Memorandl,Ull, or the Draft White Paper, or any other public state~ei.tt
.

·

i

I

that has been brought to the attention of the court by the ACLU .

.___ _ __,Accordingly, and subject to the ruling concerning officially

acknowled~e1
I

129

TOP SECRET(

. i
I

!
I

------~I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 30 of 39

~

TOP SECRET/

I
I

i
I

I
facts that is applicable to all documents, I conclude that the document need not be

•

i

j'

I
I

I j

produced..

I.

Document No. 112: Classified document[

~---------------------___,The Government ~sferts
chat:

r·

.

.

I;
I!

Tl~is

•

document is excn1pt under Exemption (b )(1) because .it contains cuh-Jntly
and ~~~pcrly classified information[

•

For the same reasons, this document is exempt under Exemption (b)(3)!
{National Security Act) because it would reveal intelligence sources and
m~thods
. Th~s
ddcument also contains names or other identifiers of CIA personnel th~t
!
ex~mpt from disclosure \\Oder Exemption (b)(3} and the CIA Act. (TS!tNrJ

I.
!

are

:

.

•

:
j

This document is exempt under Exemption (b)(S) because it is procecte by the
deliberative process p1·ivilege.

The document is a1so protected by Excmpt~o .
._(_b~)-(S_)_a_n_d_t_h_c_a_t_to_r_n_ey~.--c-li_,eut privilege because it consists of a confide<ntipl

I

co~munication from an atto1·ncy to the client, and would reveal

client con~d;nces

as: well as attorney recommendations and advice. The confidentiality ofthqse
.

; I

;

130

'. i
i

j

: i

TOP SECRET'----------_----_---~-----------_--~~--~_ :__]NOFORN!

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 31 of 39

TOP SECRETL__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~

l_~_J
•

•

!

Tne Govermnen! asserts."iat:

.

.

.

I

I

1

I

I

This documeut is cxe~pt under Exemption (b)(l) beCl\US~-~~ontains cJrr ntly
and propea·ly classified informatio

Foi- the same. reasons, this document is exempt under Exemption (b)(3
{National Secul·ity Act) because it would reveal intelligence sources an~ [
methods.

1

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 32 of 39

---·---

-:----

TOP SECRET.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~.
i

'

I

\ !

:I
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] T h i s document

iulo
I

contains names or other identifiers of CIA personnel that are exempt from I
disclosure under Exemption (b)(3) and the CIA Act. [
; ,

ft~ling Afler Jn

!'

'

I

.

i

I

Camera ~evie!f; This court directed the CIA to produce t~is:

document for in camera review, since it was. impossible to tell from the

informatio~ I
i

provided ):vhether it foll within the scope of what has been waived,

! !
I j

Most of the contents of this document can be disclosed, since it simply repeat~

..

;I

information contained in the Draft White Paper and the OLC-DoD Memorandum.
'

References

!i
!

:are easily redacteq:

~----------~------~·

.

i

'

_fherefslno

indicatio~ that this document is a drnft, or predccisional, or that it was prepared in :

I

advaace of the Aul!l(Ji operation; it ~ppears to be an after-the-fact summary of the ~egal

i

.i

bases for the operation, just as other documents lhat have been released or orderedj

j

.

.

:!

132
I

; I

I

TOP SEGRE~~~~~~~~~~~~~!

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 33 of 39

: I
i

.

I:

- I .,

relea.sed are. In fact, its te1tt adds nothing to the quantum of information already knn'1n
by the public.

·.

I

I

iI
The question arises whether the second half of the second pag

since they do not discuss matters as to which chcre has ~een

I
waiver bf, virtue of the release of the OLC-DOD Memorandurn, or the Draft Whit~ P~per,
·

i

lh~

or any oilier public statement that has been brought to the attention of the co mt by
..
I '

ACLU. Ilconcludc that this portion of the document is exempt fi:om disclosure undeJ
I
Exemption (b)(3), because it would r~veal intelligence methods.

;

I
!I
!l

Documcrtt No.117: Classified draft document

lrhe Government asse1ts that:
1-...-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.

.

I

• · T~is docu~cnt is exempt under Exemption (b)(l) bec11Usc it contains c~rrently
and properly classified information

133

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 34 of 39

TOP

SECRET~--------~

i
I

•

•

F~r the same reasons, this document is exempt under Exemption (b)(3)
(l'!'ational Security Act) because it contains information concemin intelli:
sources and methods.I

T~is

lCC

document is exempt under Exemption (b)(S because it is
th'.e deliberative p1·ocess lll"ivilege.

~~_.,__~_;_--'---"L""----,

'

l

Ruling: There has been no waiver of these exemptions by virtue of the

:

.

.

.j

rele~s€. of

:I

the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft Wlute P1:1pe1-, or any other pubhc stateier
·that has been brought to the attention of the cou1t by the ACLU. Accordingly, and ~~ject
:
:

.
'

to the ruli'ng concerning officially acknowledged facts that is applicable to aU documbnLci,

:

.

I conclude that Che document need not be produced.

I

. ;

Document No. 118: Classified Memorandum

134

i

I

.

TOP SECRET

'--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I
I

YoFoRN

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 35 of 39

TOP SECRET~--------·~·

iThe Government asserts that:

·1

•

I

.

This document is exempt under Exemption (b)(l) because it contains c 'rrhntly

and properly classified Information

• F~r the same reasons, this document is exempt under Exemption (b)(Jj !
{National Security Act) because it concains information concerning intellfgdnce

sources and methods.

This document al o
.
I
cqntains names or other identifters of CIA personnel that are exempt from i I
di~closurc under Exemption (b)(3) and tbc CIA Act. [
:

--------·--------

J

l
I

•

TMs d°'ument ii exompl nndu Exemption (b)'.5) be<>n•e It is
the delibentive process privilege.

I

135

.

proteel~d ~y

]

;\
'i
i

i

l

-----~lI

.

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 36 of 39

------------·----· -------·------ ---TOP SECREn1'---------~:

I
!

L___________________

;·1-.1

Ruling: There has been no waiver of these exemptions by virtue of the rele~sy of
.

I

the OLC-bOD Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other public state~etr

that has

~een brought to the attention of the court: by the ACLU. Accordingly, and :s~bject
; I

lO

the ruling concerning officially acknowledged facts that is applicable to all doc~11ents,
I

I conclude that the document need not be produced,

·:

f

j

Document No. 119: Classified Memorandum

------

•

__Jf

he Government asserts that:

i
I

1

Tf1is document is exempt under Exemption (b) 1 bccnusc it contains crlrr ntl
atid properly classified informatio

.,

-i

136
i

l

TOP•SECRET/ '--------------···----·-·--- ~OF"ORN
i

I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 37 of 39

TOP SECRET/

•

'----~---

_ _ _ _ _ _ :=JNOFORN.

Fy•· the same reasons, this document is exempt unde't" Exemption (b)(J)1 \
{National Security Act) b~c_ausc it contiiins information concerriing intell g nee
stjurces and methods. i

'-----;---------.---;-;----..,.=--~=-:--------.--.--_J This document .a1ro
contains names or other identifiers of CIA personnel that are exempt from l
disclosure under Exemption (b)(3) and the CIA Act.

L

1

, \
I

i

.

.

Ruling: There has been no waiver of these cxcmptious by viitue of the

rele~t of

:

I

the OLC-'oOD Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other public stateme~t

.I

that has !:ken brought ro the attention of the couit by the ACLU. Accordingly, and :sJbject
.
:. II
to the rullng concerning officially acknowledged facts that is applicable to all

.

.

ciocu~en1s,
! I

I conclude that the document need not be produced.

i

Documealt No, 120: Classified.Memorandum,

.__________,khe Government asse1ts that:
•

·

This document ls exempt under Exemption (b)(l) because it contains
and properly classified informatio

'---------137

;

I

cJn~ntly
j

I

TOP

SECRET.L-----,--------=r~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 38 of 39

-------_ _ :_:]NoroHN

TOP SECRET/

•

F?r the same reasons~ this document is exempt under Exemption. (b)(3) i
~ational Security Act) because it contains information concerning lntemgJnce
so\irces and methods. I

-·----

--------------------~ ~-------------'

I

i

R1:/;11g: There has been no waiver of these exemptio11s by virtue of the rele~j of
the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other public staterrlc~t
!

:

!

chat has bken brought to the attention of the court by the ACLU. Accordingly, and 'slibject

' I

to the rnling conceming officially acknowledged faces that is applicable to all doc"ljients,
i

I conclud~ that the document need not be produced.

I

•·

i
I

Docurne1lt No. 123: Classified outline

138

TOP SECRET/ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =1NOFORN

I
I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-2 Filed 07/16/15 Page 39 of 39

------------~--------·----

TOP SECRET/

'-----------------

==1NOl"Ut(P'v." .
I

I

I
'

i

'----------~ The outline contains handwritten notations and questions, af I•ell

as typewritten questions within the textual discussion. Attached to the outline is a I j
'

.

.

I

I

document entitled "Qs&As," which identifies possjble questions and, for some bul1ntt all

.
I

questions, draft answers.

--------"

' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' T h e Government asserts that

I ,

;

I

· '

I

.

•

Tf1is document is c~empt under Exemption (b)(l) because it contains cu)·r 1ntl
an:d properly classified information

•

This document is exempt under Ex.emption (b)(3) (Nation11l Security
be'.cause, for the reasons discussed above, it contains informatio11 concernin~
intelligence sources and methods.

A~tJ

!

I
I

This document also contains names or

A~t.
.

·

------

..

thtO~I

other identifiers of

.__p_e-ls-9-,nn-el_t_h_at~al'e exempt from discla'sure under Exemption (b)(3) and

IA

,

----~----

!

139

i

i

i
I

TOP SECRET~~
. --_

-~-------~

JeFeRN-!

I

·

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-3 Filed 07/16/15 Page 1 of 21

-------------- -----------·---------TOP SEGRET/t___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .~,
r

•
.~

This document is exempt under Exemption {b)(S) bccat:_is:....:c_i-'-t=is.JCC:.~-'-'-'..:L.:-"'-'t-'-n_e~
deliberative roccss rivile e.

I

Rilling:
There has been no waiver of these exemptions by virtue of the rele'ase of
i
.
f
I

.

.

J

.

.

I

the OLC-POD Memorandum, or the Di-aft White Paper, or any other public statell\e1t

: I
!

that has b~en brought to the attention of the cou1t by the ACLU. Accordingly, and :;ubject
.

!

to the ruli;1g concerning officially acknowledged factc; that is applicable to all docu~bnts,
i

I

1
l conclude that the document need not be produced.
I
- - - - - " ------ -------- ----~~---1___ ..

Document No. 124:

.,

I
•

I

This document is exempt under E':<emption {b)(l) because it contains cun ntly
and properly classified information

140

TOP SECRET!\__/_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =1NOFORN

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-3 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 21

TOP ~ECRET/C ______________
· jNOFOR~

i

•

T~is document is. exempt under Exemption (b)(3) (National Sccurit}' A~t
because, for the reasons discussed above, it contains infonnation concernin
intelligence sources and methods.

_ _ _ jThis document also contains names or other identifiers of ,1
p<;rsonnel_ that are exempt from disclo:iure under E;t.emption (b)(3) al1d th~ <j:IA.

A~t.c

1
.

, 1
.

I

Rilling Aber In Camera Review; The CIA was ordered to produce this docun\ent
I
for in ca1nera revicw.j ______

141

TOPSECRETI1L__._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i
,I

_::ffieFe~~

I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-3 Filed 07/16/15 Page 3 of 21

TOP ~ECRET'1.____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~

!
I

The document is Exempt under Exemptions (b)(l) and (b)(3). There has

I

waiver o~cxcmptions by virtue of the release of the OLC-DOD Memorandum,

b~~i no
I

or~h

Draft White Paper, or any other pµblic statement that has been brought to the atten~i~n of
I
· I
the court ~y the ACLU. Accordingly, I conclude ~hat the document need not be prod?ced.

;

:

Doeume1it No. 140; Classified Memorandum
!

. I

i

The Govornmcnt assel'ts that
I
I
..
• T~is document is exempt under Exemption (b)(l) because it contains ctinbntly
a~d properly classified informatio

I

142

i

TOP SECRET/'--~~~~~~~~~~
. - - - - - - - -

!.

'1,

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-3 Filed 07/16/15 Page 4 of 21

- ---------- ---------------- ---.

I

,

T~1is

document is exempt under E:xe:rnption (b)(3) because, for the reasdn
di~c\lssed above, it contains information concerning !ntelli ence sources 'd
melho~

•

I~
\

. This document ,al o
'--c--,-9n_t_a,--i11_s_n-am-es_m_·o-t-:--h-er-:i-;d-en-t'""ir=-1e-rs-o-:f:-:C:::I:-:A-p_e_r-so_n_n_el:-t-:-h-at-are exempt from ': ';•
disclosure under Exemption (b)(3) and the CIA Act. [
__ j

I

:

.

I

.

I

I

Riling.· There has been no waiver of these exemptions by virtue of the rel~~e of

:

l

the OLc-poo Memorandwn, or the Draft White Paper, or any other public state~er
that has b~en brought to the attention of the cou11 by the ACLU. Accordingly, and ,s~bject
'

I

'

I

to the rul~ng concerning officially acknowledged faces that is applicable to all doc~~nts,
i
.
' l
I concludeI that the document need not be produced.

I

DocurncJt No. l42: Classified Memor~-~-

~he Government asserts that:

j

'-·---,--'
•

!

This document is exempt under Exemption (b)(l) because it contains currently

atjd properly classified informationL-/_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ------.....---'
I

I
TOP SECRET/

143

I

.I

:=JNeFOR~ i
'

I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-3 Filed 07/16/15 Page 5 of 21

TOP SECRET .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =1~0FOR~

' d ocument as
' exempt undet" Exemption (b)(3) becRuse, for the reaso'n'
j I
Tlns
1
discussed above, it contains info1mation concemin intelli ence sources arid

•

m¢thods.

.

' - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ J This document al~o
cqntains names or other identitie1·s of CIA personne1<that are exem t from :
-----~-'
disclosure under Exemption (b)(3) and the CIA Act.
1

L

•

_:-=J

Tjiis document is exempt nndcr Exemption (b)(S) bec1msc itJ~ pr_otected oy the

ddiib~ative ~ucess pri~lege._

'

'

Rh/Ing: There has been no waiver of these exemptions by virtue of the releast of

: I

I
I

I

I

the OLC-DOD Memorandum, or the Draft White Paper, or any other public statemeilt
..

.

II

.

'

i

that has bjeen brought to the attention of the court by the ACLU. Accordingly, and ;s~bjcct
10 the

rutg

concenUng officially acknowledged facts that is applicable to all

I concludf that the document need not be produced.

doc~+'"

·

., \

In· sum: the CIA is directed to produce Tab C to Document 59 and Docum~nis

'

l'

109 and f 13 as redacted.

I

!
I

.

(2) Glomar Reponsc

)

.

: 1·

The CIA has filed a Glomar respons~ to so much of the ACLU' s FOIA reqljst as

seeks records "pe11aining to the factual basis for the killing of' Samir Khan and

l
i

.

I
I

144

I

TOP SEGRET/.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =1NOFORNI

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-3 Filed 07/16/15 Page 6 of 21

----------------- --------TOP SECRET~

! ,.. ,,." · ·· ·-~

----~·
!
,I

L - - .

i

Abdulrahmllil Aulaqi. A Glomar response neither confirms nor denies the existencefjf

_documc+ '°sponsivc to the request. CIA thus neither confirms nor denies the

ex+ nee

of any d~cuments that discuss fl factual basis for the killing of these two individua!s
who,

acc~rding to the Attorney General, were not targeted for. killing but were kill~d
I
i

I

accident~lly: Khan along with Aulaqi, and Abdulrnlunan in an entirely different dro e

!

i

.

i
I

strike.

I

!

A,n agency may refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records where td

I

.

:

t~e FOIA inquiry would cause harm cognizable under a FOIA exemption. ;W;/ner

answer

5~2 F.3d at 68. It is the law of this Circuit that a Glomar response may b~ I

v. NSA,

!

.....

.

j

interpose~ by an agency even where the Executive Branch has officially acknowle~~ed
i
·
: I
the cxistdnce and contours of a program concer~ing which records are sought. Id. at 159.
I
: I
1
•
, I

I

However! the agency must "tether" its refusal to respond to one of the nine FOIA '
!
I
i

·

: I

exemptiop.s; "a g°'1emment agency may ... refuse to confirm or deny the existence ofi
I

i

'

. certain records .. , ..if the FOIA exemption would itself preclude the ack.nowledgembit of

':

.I
I

such doc~ments." Id. at 68

I~ the contex~ of this case, the Second Circuit in New York Times specific~nt
'

!I

'

:'

II

c9

ruled tha~ the ·cIA's light to assert a Glomar response could itself be waived - and: a
l
. !
limicc:d d.tent had been waived. But the only matter identified by the Court of Ap~eJls as
I

to which

.

1

~he CIA had waived Gfo1~ar was the fact that the CIA had an operational rJle in

targeted drone killings - a fact rhat had been disclosed

by Fo1me1· CIA Director Pan+a,

who, as+ official of the CIA, had authority to waive FOIA exemptions on behalf;o~the
C!A. As

~o tha1 fact a11d that fact alone, CIA's Glomar response was deemed
1.

''iasufficl¢ntly justified." New York Times, 756 F.3d a~ 124.
!

145

.

I
I
i
i
i

I

TOP SECRET

L---~·

---------- =1NOFORN'. II

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-3 Filed 07/16/15 Page 7 of 21

--------- ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TOP SECRET.____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _·~ i

I
By contrast, the CIA has demonstrated that a Gl.omar response is appropridre as to
I

any information about the "factual basis for the killing of'' Khan t\.!ld Abdulrahma1\.
.

CIA's GlOmar response is "tethered" to Ex.emption 3, in that disclosure is ba1Ted

CIA

'1

I

ijy the

Act.~Responding to the ACLU's request could reveal whether the U.S. Gover~~ent

was aware of facts lhat the ACLU assumes to be true: that the CIA

wa5 aware of~htn's

J.

presence '.with Aulaqi; that the Govemment either took measures to avoid his deat~ did
I ,
not do so; and that CIA had an intelligence interest in Khan, Abdulrahman, or botij.

The basis for a Glomar response is no less persuasive in this instance than

I

it Las

in Wilner: In both cases, tl>erc is a specific sta!Utc (hc.c the CIA Act, in Wilner

th~ +A

Act) that .bars disclosure of whether the information sought even exists, and m

bot~

the invocation is suppol'red by affidavits to which this court is required to give

;

"b
·1 we1g
"h"
su stantla
t.

:jI

1ases

' I

i

I

.

I

Furtherm.ore, there has been no waiver of the CIA's right to invoke Glom~r ~as
there was in New York Times), because (1) there has been no disclosure by

"factual basis fa. the killing of' either oftbose two individuals (the only
by

imyone~of any

discJOsu•~, ~adc

Attor~cy General Holder, is that botll were killed accidentally); and (2) there h~ ~een

no di•cl;•• or the existence of any '"o'd'. relating to any Exooutive Bmnch ••+ttion
of any factual basis that might exist for killing either of them. ACLU has not ident!fied
,

I

any source, including specifically anyone affiliated with the CIA, who has publiclY,
i

disclosed the existence of anything at all relating to Abdulrahman Aulaqi that might xist

.

!

el

in CIA flies, and the court is not independently aware of any such source. ACLU ~Is? ~as
not identified any public disclosure about what it de.scribes as "the factual basis"

rfr I

killing Samir Khan. The only public disclosure plaintiff has identified is a public

!
I

146

I

TOPSECRETI~~~~~~~~~---:]NoFOR~I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-3 Filed 07/16/15 Page 8 of 21

TOP SECRET/.____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~

acknowledgement ihat Khan wa• unda SU<vcillancc by the FBI

bee••"• he w" blJ,;ng

aboutjihad. (Wicker Ex. 14). That discrete fact, I have already held, ]ms been

pub~il

acknowledged. But public disclosure that someone is under surveillance is not the!J:e

ll
targeting that person for death -- Jet alone that the CIA (which is not the FBI) has I !
t

thing as public acknowledgement that anyone ever looked into a factual basis for

documen~s
.

relating to such an analysis in its files.

Frankly, there has been far less

disclosur~ about the information sought by the ACLU here than was the case .in

Pullie
;!

w'r11er.

Of course, "what waives Glomar is an acknowledgement that re<cords do ~ f~ct
.
.
.
.
!I
exist," New York Times l'. United Stales Department ofJustice, 915 F. Supp. 2d 5~81552
(S.D.N. Y. 2013) - not disclosure about the matters discussed in those records.
ACLU

Th1

argu~s that thefe has.been a waiver of Glomar because the Government ha~
I

already acknowledged that "it conducts both before and after-the-fa.ct factual

.

anal~s

s to

Ii

determin¢ the lawfulness of the drone strikes it conducts." ACLU argues that such!a
inquiry must have been conducted following the strikes that killed both Khan and :
Abdulrahman, and records must have been created in connection with those
'

inquir~sl
.

I

This means that the Government - by acknowledging that jt conducts after-the-fact
revlews--has effectively acknowledged that documents relevant to that inqui1y exi~t.

The first re"son why this argument does not work is that nothing in the rec9r1·

.

indicates that anyone ar rhe CIA ever publicly acknowledged any Agency involve$e tin
the conduct of either before-or-after-the-fact inquiries into the lawfulness of drone\
I
strikes. Ir bears repeating: only the CIA can waive FOIA protections (including Glf

.
on behalf of the CIA. Wilson, 586 F.3d at 186-87.

r'r)

I

i
;

!

147

.
I

TOP SECRFf/=======~~~~~~~-----~~~-·-·_- _]NOFORN\
I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-3 Filed 07/16/15 Page 9 of 21

----~--------

--------

--------

TOPSECRET'--~~~~~~~~~-=:]NOFOR~

I

'

I

Th.e second reason is that I, like the Government, conclude that the ACLU;isl
.

scra~ing be~ond the bounds of the FOIA request here u~der revie~.

16

nr
:j
I

ACLU is

askmg for 1ecords about the lawfulness of the drone strikes that killed Khan and

!ere

Abdulraljman. Rather, the request that was Glorrzared seeks records "pertaining toi~r

factual

b~sis for the killing of' two specific indiv~duals - including specifically as~ to
:

:I

I.

Khan (wto was killed in the attack on Aulaqi) information about the Governmenc;s

knowlcd~e of his whereabouts on the day when A~laqi was targeted, whether metJres
were takc;n to avoid Khan's death, or any other fact relevant to "the decision to kill 1than

~

I

.
. facts no! in :i
Putting
to one side the fact that the ACLU's request "assumes

1

'

or rhe failure to avoid causing his death." (Emphasis added).
I

I

'

cvidencd' (i.e., that the

Go~rerrunent ever made a decision either to kill Kahn eir n~t

•

•

I

o
I

:+

avoid catising his death), absolutely nothing in the record suggests that anyone asspdiated

with the CJ.A (the only agency that can waive FOIA exemptions. on behalf of the

has ever publicly acknowledged anything about Khan - still less that a decision w~s~adc
.

either to

\

!

li:ill Wm or to risk doing so. Nothing in the record of public disclosures b~
I
=

IA

.

officials ipdicates that anyone involved operationally in the Aulaqi takedown kne\~
.

.

I
I

anything itbout Khan's whereabouts on that day, let alone that the CIA has records: 1
; i
addressin.g tll.at issue. This contrasts starkly with the situation confronting the Sec~n~
i

-

"

""

.l

i

i

14 l unders1and th111 the ACLU has filed FOJA requests in che District of Columbia Dislrict Court ~cc19ng
informarion obout rhe lawfulncu of drone strike$ generally end addressing bystander casualties. Tl(e ACLU
has also filed another FOIA lawsuit in this district, AmericC1n Civil Liberties Union et_ Al•• "· Depni,s11lent of
J11s1ice. et. al.. 15 Civ. 1954 (CM), seeking records "penaining to (I) the legal basis in foreign, don14-tic,
and international law upon which the government may use lethal force again8C individuals or group~; ~2)
che process:by whic~ ~be govennncnt designates i~divlduals or_gr.oups ~or targeted killing; (3) befoje-lchefacl assessment of c1vlllan or bystander casualcles m 1arge1ed-k1llmg strikes and any ~nd all record~
conceming'after action investigations into individual·targeted-killing strikes; and (4} !he number ~d

I

inj\\~ed in ta.ri:;cted killi11gs. I am sure this precise issue, which is not
comprehen~ed in the fOIA requests here at issue, will have to be addressed in one or botb <ifthose!cll!les.
148
i

idcntitie$ of individuals killed or

I

TOP SECRET

L--~~~~-~--~---~---

.=_jNOFORN

II

.

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-3 Filed 07/16/15 Page 10 of 21

TOP SECRETc___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~

Circuit on the first appeal in this case, when it concluded that the CIA Director's :

ackriowl?dgemenc of his agency's operational involvement in targeted drone killiJg!

eliminat~d the possibility that Glomar could shield the CIA from identifying documlnts
that would respond
,

t~ the ACLU's .request for opinions addressing the lerrality CJf ~ulhI
t>

'

operations.

Therefore, .applying the Second Circuit's reasoning in Wilnei-, I conclude tita
.

officio! •:knowlcdgcmcnt that (l) Khan and Abd\llrohman we<e killed, coupled.

wit~ (2)

after-the-ract analysis 1s routmely done to determine the lawfulness of all drone. st~t~es

(inclu~fo~, presumably, th• ones !bot k.Ucd these two individuals) do" not constitrl
"official

~cknowledgement"

,

of"the extstence or noncx\Stence of the specific rccoGd.

' I
I

!

sought b>i the FOIA request,"

I

I

B. Documents 011 the Departinent ofDefense Vaughn Index

i

,I

!

(1) Documents on the ludc:x
Document No, I: Classified memorandum from

149

I

i

TOP

SEGRET/L--~-------~

I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-3 Filed 07/16/15 Page 11 of 21

-----·--------------------------TOP SECRETL__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~:

I
_______

],

discussing two Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") opinions (attached to memorandp ).
regarding thej
The
Government asserts that;

I

I

.

•

•

This document is exempt under Exemption (b)(l) bcc1\Use
and properly classified informa.cion regardin2'

I

it contains c\\n1entlv ·

.
I I
This document is exempt under Exemption (b)(S) and the attorncy·cli~n~
privilege because the memorandum constitutes a communication between a
artorney
and his client,
~ which the parties intended to be privileged, convcy~~;~~ce an(f llas
not previously been disclosed. J

. (-8/!Nf)

Ruling, After Jn Cwnera Review.: DoD was directed to produce this docu~e1 t fo1·
•

I

in camera review, which it did

I

150

TOP SECRET/,____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i

:::JNOFOR~: I
;

I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-3 Filed 07/16/15 Page 12 of 21

TOP SECRET/

---i,... ,....-.-u-.....
'----------~

; .

!

Tre document is covered by the attorney-client privilege ((b)(5)). There h~ ren
no waive~· of these exemptions by dlsclosure of the Draft White·Paper, the

OLC-Dbf

Memoratj.dum, or any public statement called to the attention of the court. It need ~o~ be

I
I

produce&

Documc~t No. 31:

Classified talking points

fromL____~

___j

Id -----.____ ___]undated, discussing'--------------.,........,~
'-------,-------'

•

(SttNf). The Government argues that:

T~is document is_~xempt under Secti~n (b)(l) b.ecausc it discusses curnli1t:11y
aijd properly classified
___ .

details concerrungC
_
I
Speclfic'1ly, the 1alldng rl•l~

__j

discuss
The talking points also summarize:

(SHNF)

•

Ti•is document is exempt under Section (b) 5 llhd the ueJibcrativc pro~CfS
p~ivilegc

because it

\i

151

-~;i

TOP SECRET ------~----=:)NOFORNI
.I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-3 Filed 07/16/15 Page 13 of 21

----------------- -------· ·-.-·----TOP SECRET.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~:

I

!
'----------~

and is therefore predecisional and deliberative. The

do.; c~~ent represents ~ interim stage in i~ti·a·aency discussions preccdin$ final
declSlon of the Executive Branch concerning a
The disclosure of such internal deliberations wouJd have a chillin

==i ;

This document was produced for in carfie a

KYling Afler In Camera Revjew:
I

I

-=1
_

review. I~ consists entirely o~._____

___,and contains no discussion of leg.I

;

I

matters "Yhatsoever. It is exempt under Exemption (b)(l). There has been no waiver of
these

;

; I

,

I

exe~ptions by disclosure of the Draft White Paper, the OLC-DOD Memori0dlm,

or any public statement called 10 !he attention of !he court. It need not be produce,.

Docume~t No. 38:

Classified dra1

L _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,

The Government asserts that:
•

This document Is

.)

I ..

:

l

:

~xompt ''.ndcr Section (1)(1) booause !be dooomont dilc,J..,.

currently and properly classified

details

cone~~

.

. (SI/NF-)
•

--T-hi_s_d~ocument is exempt under Section (b)(S) and the deliberative ro¢cks

privi~cgc bec1msc it is a draft document discussingC _ _ _ _ _ _~_ __,
which represents an interim stage in intraagency discussions preceding a final decision of the Executive Branch con~et.ning

·

II

· is2
i

I

TOP sEcRETA

JoFoR~
'

I
\
I

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-3 Filed 07/16/15 Page 14 of 21

---:---·-------TOP SECRET

(-

I

The disclosure of such inicrnal
-------'-~-...
dyliberations would have a chilling effect

lj

EWNFJ

- - - There
- - ihas
- been no waiver of these exem~tions by disclosure ofthi raft
..' Rll/fng.

White Paper, the OLC-DOD Memorandum, .or any pubhc statement called to the '
;

.

attention.:of the court. Furthermore, as it d~ls with

I

~ it does not ~pf.ear

to this coiut to be responsive to the FOIA request. In any event, this document
;

nedd hot
I '

be produced.
Document No. 39: Clas:;ified draft
, undated,,

The

Gov~rnmcnt

~~ T

asserts that:

.

.

----~rj

This document is exempt under Section (b)(l) because the document disb sses
cl.lr.cently and properly classified
details concerning

•

--~

•

).

tsffNF-)

' s
This document is exempt under Section (b)(S) and the deliberative rote
pHvilege because it is a draft document discussin~ __
__
which represents an interim stage in intrI=j
La_g~e_n_c_y_d~is_c_u-ss..,.io_n_s_p..,...r-ec-e-,d:-:-in_g_a--=final decision of the Executive Branch con6eming
The disclosure of such internal
deliberations would have a chilling effect ' - - - - - - - -

[

'

tsffNF7
!

Ro/Ung: Same ruling as Document 38.

I

153

TOP SECRET,....------------ -

_}NOFOR~

\

I

'

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-3 Filed 07/16/15 Page 15 of 21

TOPSECRET~--------~i

.I
Documeht No. 46: Classified dra

tsfiNF). The Govcrrunent asserts that:
•

!
!

:'

TI1is document is exempt under Section (b)(I) because the document copt 1ins
c~rrently and properly classified information concernin

I

• This document is exempt under Section (b)(S) and the d cliberativc pro'ce :ss
ptMlege because it is a draft document discussinC
I
which represents an interim stage in intra-a ~ency discussiobsl
pieceding a final decision of the Executive Branch concerning[
The disclos\ll·e of such internal deliberatio~d
Lh~a~v_e_a_c~h~il=li-ng-ef=·fi~ec-t.,-------'--·-------~·
[]

I

I

~~---~

_! I.

ESf/Nf-)

.

:

~There has been no waiver of these exemptions by virtue of the rele~s . of

lhe OLCJDOD Memorandum, or the Draft White Pape<, or any other public

st•~+

that has 9een brought to the attention of the court by the ACLU .. While the docum~nt
deals

wit~
land the document - by its terms, a d1·a~

~w-o-u-ld-re_11_'e-a-l-in-te-r-im-d-is_c_us_s_i_on_s_._A_c_c_o1--d~ingly, and subject to the ruling concerning 1
I

'

officially:acknowledgcd facts that is applicable to all documents, I conclude that t~e
.

I

document need not be produced.

154
I
i

TOP SEGRET/l___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =tNOFORt1

1

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-3 Filed 07/16/15 Page 16 of 21

....

ffiP SECRET/

-·-- ··-·-·····- --···--

f.NOI UHN

(SffNf'). The Oovcrmnenl asscns thnl:
•

: j
This document is exempt under Section (b)(l) bccHusc the do::.ument copt_i!-ins
C\Hrcntly and properly classified information concerning

'ESHNf)

•

T~is document is exempt unde1· Section (b)(5) and the presidential
cornmunkatious [H·ivilege beci\use the mcmoranduI11 c•;usists of
communications between

• r
'fS#NF-)

155

TOP SECRET/.

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-3 Filed 07/16/15 Page 17 of 21

-----------------------·· -----·TOP SECRET/.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~:
•

I

I

R~ling AOer Jn Camera Review:

I
In order to facilitate segrcgability review, !tie
i

!

DOD wa~ directed to provide the court, for in camera review, those portions of tht

documen~ that discuss\

l- - of the

-~-~

do~umcnt were required to"be provided to the coun.

J

.I

. No other pohions

I

.

I

f

'.
.

A~er in camera review.• I conclude that the document is exempt under Exeln tion
. (b)(1) for: the reasons outlined by the Government and
•

reprinte~ above. The legal it~

I

f

:

conductiryg a counterte1roi-ism operation against Aulaqi is not discussed at all in

tbfs

i

memoran4um;

i

Tij .e

has been

:o

waiver of these exemptions by virtue of the release

I

of_t_h_e_O_L_C--D-O~D:

I
A:ctu's

Memora~dum, or the Draft White Papel", OJ" any other public statement that has be~n
brought t~ the attention of the court by the ACLU. As material responsive to the
><que"

i~ru>l included in thi' documen~ thc<e ;, '<ally nothing to •cg<egatc, and in +y

event no ~onion of this document is ~easonably segregable. The document need nqt

~roduced;

.

;

r
I

Documei!t No. 81: Classified In Camera, Ex Parle Declaration and Formal Claim o
Military a'nd State Secrets Privilege by Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, dated 23
'

I

i

Sepcemb~r 2010, discussing the specific types of classified information over whicl~ tie

Secretiiry'.ofDefense asserted military and stales secret prjvilcge/

'

TOP

156

SEpRET/l__~~---------===------=======-==rNOFOR~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-3 Filed 07/16/15 Page 18 of 21

-~
I
I

TOP SECRET~~---

.

(-&11Nf1. Portions bjthis
document are voluntarily being produced to plaintiff. The Government asserts thai::
I

•

!

Tre withlield port~ons of the document are exempt under Exemption (~)(l)
b~causc they contam currently and properly classified information pertaini'n 1 to
m?Iitary operations against al-Qai'da in the Arabian Peninsula and Anwar
laqi.
The document contains an extended discussion about previous

A

~)

Rt{ling: DoD did not originally identify this document on its Vaughn Index!.
Having

I

b<lat~dly Jooatcd it, the agellcy ad\;,cd that it was "P~"ing tho docu~in1for

release to:plamuffa in redacted fonn." DOD was ordered to provide the court w1thjb th
redacted

~nd unred~cted

!
iI

versions of this document for in camera review as soon a$

possible. It did so.

Alie< in camera .-eview of the uruedactcd veraion of tbIB document agaimt
publicly

J

~led ,.dacted venion, I conclude that the withheld portion• of. the do~umH

a.-e

exempt under Exemption (b)(l) for substantially the reasons asserted by the Governii1ent

.

I

I

iiOd rcprh-i.ted above. There has been no waiver of these exemptions by virtue ofth;e)

release o~the OLC·DOD Memorandum, or the Draft White Pap~r, or any other

purr

staternent:that has been brought to the attention of the couit by the ACLU. There i~

lb

discu"8io~ of the legal b"i' fur condUcting any operation again'1 Aulaqi, 'o cbcre .;, \
.
l~

TOP

'. I
'

SECRET/~---------~

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-3 Filed 07/16/15 Page 19 of 21

TOP SECRET,_______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~

l

nht be

nothing rfsponsive to the ACLU's FOIA request"to segregate. The document need

. I.
I
disc osed;

i
'

(2) DoD Glomar Response

DrD has also interposed a Glomar response to the ACLU's request for
informatipn about the "factual basis" for the accidental killing of Samir Khan and ;
'

.

:

!

Abdulrahinan Aulaqi. The.above discussion upholding the propriety of the Glomaf
J

.

•

response jnterposed by the CIA applies equally to DoD .
.

I

!

I

:

i

:

:

T~e principal differnnce between the two agencies is that a disclosure by any
:
Executiv~

I I

Branch official can be sufficient to waive privilege with respect to the D.oD,

whet·eas Jnly disclost1re by an official of the CIA itseif waives privilege with
the Cl A. :Wwem, the<e ;, no cv;den.>c in the.

res~J to

te~onl that any official ~f the Exec+1•

Branch, from any agency, bas ever said anythmg publicly about the kill mg of Kha~ ind
Abdulrahfnan, other than to disclose that they were killed accidentally rather than
design

byl

(~ Aulaqi was). Since the recotd contains no disclosure that anyone said ari4ing
.

I

that woulkt have waived Glomar as to this issue on behalf of the Defense

.

Departm~n~

:

.; I
DoD, no ~ess than the CIA, is free to stand on.its Glomar response, and neithe1· cmifi1·m
nor deny fhat it has any document.'3 responsive to the ACLU's request.

·

I

I
I

CONCLUSION
Tq summarize the coul't'S rulings:
I. FOJA exemptions have been waived as to the followi~g "officially acknowledg~d
matea·ial:'~
.

i

158

. TOP SECRET/L.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~\ ·

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-3 Filed 07/16/15 Page 20 of 21

----·---------- - - - - - - ·TOP SECRET

---i... " u " ,.....

<--~~~~~~~i
'

I
1.i The fact that the Government uses drones to carry out targeted killings.
I overseas;
I
I
i
2.i The fact that both DOD and CIA have an intelligence interest in the usJ f
; dmnes to carry out targeted killings;
·
·
j

1
f

I

~

.

3.; The fact t~a: both DOD and the CIA have an operational role in condu~tif' g
targeted ktlhngs;

~nforma_ti.on about the legal basis (constitu~ion~I. statutory, com~on la~.!

4.!

~ntern~tional l~w and treaty law) for. e?gagmg m the tn!gcted killings a~r,ad,
mcludmg spcc1ficaJly the targeted ktlhng ofa U.S. national;
]

l

5.! The fact that the Government carried out tbe targeted killing of Aulaqi;!

j

I

6.J The fact that the FBI was investigating Samir Khan's involvement injih d.
!

T~e agencies have 45 days from the date on which this opinion is submitte~ or

II.

classification review (May 13, 2015) to submit to the court, on a document-by-doc~ ent
I

.

!

basis, (1) :a
certification that the document does not contain any "officially ackno\\i,le
ged
'
i
material.

;f•! or (2) a ce1tification that the document
contains "officially acknowledgf
.
.

material,'! but any such material caru1ot reasonably be segregated from material th~t as
!
not been <official1y acknowledged" and as to which FOIA exemptions have not be~l ·
1

waived;
be

~r (3) as to any document containing "officially ack~owlc:dged material" t~&

~egreg~ted

can

I

from PO IA-exempt material, a copy of the document with proposed:
l

redactions.
OLC has thirty days from May 13, 201 S to produce for In camera review the

III.

following; documents: 1. 8, 9.
102,

to, 46, so, 57-68, 10, 11, 73-79, 83, 84, 88-91, 93, 9f-(oo,

no, 1117-22, 144-147, 243, 250, 253, 262-65 and 269-71. After in cnmera r~vie. w,
.

. the

cou~t' orders OLC t~

1md the col11plete text of Document SO to plaintiffs.

·

1
nnd] lrS
I

produce redacted vers.iolls of Documents 46, 144

1s9

;

I

TOPSECRETL-~==================:JNeFeRN\

!

 Case 1:12-cv-00794-CM Document 128-3 Filed 07/16/15 Page 21 of 21

TOP SECRET~

==1NOFORN
I

. ·II
IV.

CIA has thiny day' to produce for In camera review the following documep: 45,

59. 78, 96,", 109, 113, 124. After in camora n>vtew, tho cou.t ordm CIA to

pif

«

Tl\h C to\Documeut 59 and redacted vct·sions of Documents 109 and 113 to
plaintiffs,
V.

Dqo has thirty days from May 13, 2015 to produce for in camera review t!1e

following documents: I, 31, 55 (in part). Aftel' in camera review, the cou1·t dccli~e to
order production of any of these DOD documents to plaintltfs.
This constitutes the decision and order of the cou1t

Dated: June 23, 2015

i
I

;
. . . I.
n CIA mny ·~ither pl"oduce the document or produce 11 cer!ific111ion th11t it tonrains no responsive male\111 .
I

See above text.

I

I

160

~~~~~~-i.u~r~~
TOPSECRETIL~~~~~~~~~~~
i.

1

·•:.

I