Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION. (Attachments: # (1) Memorandum in Support, # (2) Statement of Facts, # (3) Exhibit Ex. 1 (Seidel Decl.), # (4) Exhibit Ex. 2 (Davis Decl.), # (5) Exhibit Ex. 3 (Williams Decl.), # (6) Text of Proposed Order)(Littman, M.)
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AARON GREENSPAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 23-1816 (BAH)
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S.
ATTORNEYS, et al.,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND COMBINED
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, and Drug
Enforcement Administration (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through counsel, respectfully
cross-move for summary judgment in this Freedom of Information Act case brought by Plaintiff
Aaron Greenspan. In support of this motion and in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment, Defendants respectfully refer the Court to the accompanying memorandum of points
and authorities, statement of material facts not in genuine dispute, and supporting declarations. A
proposed order is also enclosed herewith.
*
*
*Page 2 Respectfully submitted,
MATTHEW M. GRAVES, D.C. Bar #481052
United States Attorney
BRIAN P. HUDAK
Chief, Civil Division
By:
/s/ M. Jared Littman
M. JARED LITTMAN, PA Bar #91646
Assistant United States Attorney
601 D Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 252-2523
Jared.Littman@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for the United States of America
2Page 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AARON GREENSPAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 23-1816 (BAH)
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S.
ATTORNEYS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTPage 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................
1
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................
3
I.
II.
FOIA Requests and Responses ............................................................................... 4
A.
FBI .............................................................................................................. 4
B.
DEA ............................................................................................................ 6
C.
CIA .............................................................................................................. 7
Civil Action ............................................................................................................. 8
LEGAL STANDARD................................................................................................................
9
ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................
9
I.
II.
III.
FBI and DEA Have Properly Asserted Glomar Responses Pursuant to Privacy
Exemptions 6 and 7(C) ......................................................................................... 10
A.
FBI: Privacy Interests Outweigh the Public Interests in Disclosure ......... 13
B.
DEA: Privacy Interests Outweigh the Public Interests in Disclosure ....... 15
C.
Plaintiff’s Privacy and Public Interest Arguments Are Unpersuasive and
Contrary to Law. ....................................................................................... 16
CIA Has Properly Asserted Glomar Responses Pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3 19
A.
Exemption 1 .............................................................................................. 19
B.
Exemption 3 .............................................................................................. 24
Defendants Have Never Officially and Publicly Acknowledged the Records that
Plaintiff Requests. ................................................................................................. 26
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................
33
-i-Page 5 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
ACLU v. Dep’t of Def., 628 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................... 19, 20, 24
Afshar v. Dep’t. of State, 702 F.2d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ........................................................................................ 31, 32
Am. First Legal Found. v. FBI,
Civ. A. No. 23-2172, 2024 WL 4607496 (D.D.C. Oct. 29, 2024) ................................. passim
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ................................................................................................................. 9
Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................ 18, 19
Boyd v. Crim. Div. of Dep’t of Just., 475 F.3d 381 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................ 18
Brayton v. Off. of U.S. Trade Rep., 641 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 9
Canaday v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 545 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2008) ........................................................................................ 17
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ................................................................................................................. 9
CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159 (1985) ............................................................................................................... 25
CREW v. Dep’t of Just., 746 F.3d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................. 12
CREW v. Dep’t of Just., 854 F.3d 675 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................ 11
Davis v. Dep’t of Just., 968 F.2d 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1992) .............................................................................................. 11
Dep’t of Just. v. Reps. Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) ......................................................................................................... 11, 17
Dep’t of State v. Wash. Post Co., 456 U.S. 595 (1982) ............................................................................................................... 10
DiBacco v. Dep’t of Army, 926 F.3d 827 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................ 25
- ii -Page 6 DiBacco v. U.S. Army, 795 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................ 24
Frontier Found. v. Dep’t of Just., 739 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................... 9
Frugone v. CIA, 169 F.3d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................ 27
Gardels v. CIA, 689 F.2d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1982) .............................................................................................. 10
Graff v. FBI, 822 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2011) .......................................................................................... 17
Higgins v. Dep’t of Just., 919 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D.D.C. 2013) ........................................................................................ 11
Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Def., 715 F.3d 937 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................ 20
Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 514 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2007) ............................................................................................ 17
Jurdi v. United States, 485 F. Supp. 3d 83 (D.D.C. 2020) .......................................................................................... 11
Knight First Amend. Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. CIA, 11 F.4th 810 (D.C. Cir. 2021) .......................................................................................... 27, 28
Leopold v. CIA, 987 F.3d 163 (D.C. Cir. 2021) .......................................................................................... 27, 32
Marino v. DEA, 685 F.3d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................. 28
Mobley v. CIA, 806 F.3d 568 (D.C. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................... 26, 27, 30
Moore v. CIA, 666 F.3d 1330 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................... passim
Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2007) .............................................................................................. 24
Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004) ................................................................................................... 17, 18, 19
Nat’l Ass’n of Retired Fed. Emps. v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ................................................................................................ 19
- iii -Page 7 Phillippi v. CIA, 546 F.2d 1009 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ........................................................................................ 1, 3, 4
SafeCard Servs. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) .............................................................................................. 12
Schaerr v. Dep’t of Just., 69 F.4th 924 (D.C. Cir. 2023) ................................................................................................ 10
U.S. Section, Int’l Boundary & Water Comm’n, U.S.-Mex., 740 F.3d 195 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................ 11
PETA v. NIH, 745 F.3d 535 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................ 10
Weisberg v. Dep’t of Just., 627 F.2d 365 (D.C. Cir. 1980) .................................................................................................. 9
Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................ passim
Statutes
5 U.S.C. § 552 ...................................................................................................................... passim
50 U.S.C. § 3024 ........................................................................................................................
24
50 U.S.C. § 3507 ........................................................................................................................
25
- iv -Page 8 Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”),
and Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) (collectively, “Defendants”),1 by and through
undersigned counsel, respectfully submit this memorandum of points and authorities in support of
their cross-motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 56 and
in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 44).
INTRODUCTION
This case arises from numerous Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests that
Plaintiff Aaron Greenspan submitted to the FBI, CIA, DEA, Executive Office for U.S Attorneys,
Department of State, and the Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in 2022
and 2023. See ECF No. 35 (2nd Am. Compl.). The requests sought criminal investigative
documents concerning third-parties, Bola Ahmed Tinubu (“Tinubu”), Lee Andrew Edwards,
Mueez Abegboyega Akande, and Abiodun Agbele (“Agbele”), who, according to Plaintiff,
participated in “an international drug trafficking and money laundering ring with operations in
Chicago, Illinois.” ECF No. 41-1 (Pl.’s Mem.), at 1. The remaining disputes involve Defendants’
Glomar responses2 to Plaintiff’s request for records about Tinubu (the President of Nigeria) and
the DEA’s Glomar response to Plaintiff’s request for records about Agbele.
1
Plaintiff also sued the Executive Office for U.S Attorneys, Department of State, and the
Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, but on August 13, 2024, he voluntarily
dismissed those defendants. ECF No. 40 (Stip. of Dismissal); Min. Order of Aug. 13, 2024.
2
The phrase “Glomar response” originated from a FOIA case that sought information
concerning a ship named the “Hughes Glomar Explorer,” and the CIA refused to confirm or deny
its relationship with the Glomar vessel because to do so would compromise the national security
or divulge intelligence sources and methods. Phillippi v. CIA, 546 F.2d 1009, 1010 (D.C. Cir.
1976). Glomar responses are proper “if the fact of the existence or nonexistence of agency records
falls within a FOIA exemption.” Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370, 374 (D.C. Cir. 2007).Page 9 The FBI and DEA properly asserted Glomar responses under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C)
because the requests seek criminal investigative documents pertaining to third parties that, if they
existed, would interfere with the third parties’ substantial privacy interests in not being associated
with law enforcement investigative records. The CIA properly asserted Glomar responses under
FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3 because confirming or denying the existence or nonexistence of records
related to Tinubu would reveal classified information that is protected from disclosure by executive
order and statute. To the extent that Plaintiff attempts to argue that the existence of the requested
records have been officially acknowledged, such that a Glomar response could not be used, this
argument will not succeed for numerous reasons—not the least of which Plaintiff never
demonstrated that such an acknowledgement had ever been publicly and officially made by
Defendants.
There are three central questions before the Court, and Plaintiff’s case fails at each step.
First, whether an affidavit of an agent of the Department of Treasury, IRS, pierces the Glomar
responses of the Defendants, who are not part of the Department of Treasury. That is, whether the
affidavit of an IRS agent constitutes an official acknowledgment of the FBI, DEA, and CIA that
the records requested by Plaintiff exist. Under Circuit precedent, the answer is no.
Second, whether a complaint brought by United States Attorney’s Office of the Northern
District of Illinois seeking forfeiture of seized funds in Tinubu’s bank accounts, based on the IRS
agent’s affidavit, transforms the affidavit into an official and documented public disclosure
confirming that the FBI, DEA, and CIA records requested by Plaintiff exist. The answer to that
question is also no.
Third, even if it is presumed that the affidavit from an agent of one agency is imputed to
other agencies (which the law forbids), Plaintiff must establish that the prior disclosure matches
2
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:23-cv-01816-BAH
Document 43
Filed 11/11/24
Page 1 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AARON GREENSPAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 23-1816 (BAH)
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S.
ATTORNEYS, et al.,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND COMBINED
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, and Drug
Enforcement Administration (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through counsel, respectfully
cross-move for summary judgment in this Freedom of Information Act case brought by Plaintiff
Aaron Greenspan. In support of this motion and in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment, Defendants respectfully refer the Court to the accompanying memorandum of points
and authorities, statement of material facts not in genuine dispute, and supporting declarations. A
proposed order is also enclosed herewith.
*
*
*
PDF Page 3
Case 1:23-cv-01816-BAH
Dated: November 11, 2024
Washington, DC
Document 43
Filed 11/11/24
Page 2 of 9
Respectfully submitted,
MATTHEW M. GRAVES, D.C. Bar #481052
United States Attorney
BRIAN P. HUDAK
Chief, Civil Division
By:
/s/ M. Jared Littman
M. JARED LITTMAN, PA Bar #91646
Assistant United States Attorney
601 D Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 252-2523
Jared.Littman@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for the United States of America
2
PDF Page 4
Case 1:23-cv-01816-BAH
Document 43
Filed 11/11/24
Page 3 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AARON GREENSPAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 23-1816 (BAH)
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S.
ATTORNEYS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PDF Page 5
Case 1:23-cv-01816-BAH
Document 43
Filed 11/11/24
Page 4 of 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 3
I.
II.
FOIA Requests and Responses ............................................................................... 4
A.
FBI .............................................................................................................. 4
B.
DEA ............................................................................................................ 6
C.
CIA .............................................................................................................. 7
Civil Action ............................................................................................................. 8
LEGAL STANDARD..................................................................................................................... 9
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 9
I.
II.
III.
FBI and DEA Have Properly Asserted Glomar Responses Pursuant to Privacy
Exemptions 6 and 7(C) ......................................................................................... 10
A.
FBI: Privacy Interests Outweigh the Public Interests in Disclosure ......... 13
B.
DEA: Privacy Interests Outweigh the Public Interests in Disclosure ....... 15
C.
Plaintiff’s Privacy and Public Interest Arguments Are Unpersuasive and
Contrary to Law. ....................................................................................... 16
CIA Has Properly Asserted Glomar Responses Pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3 19
A.
Exemption 1 .............................................................................................. 19
B.
Exemption 3 .............................................................................................. 24
Defendants Have Never Officially and Publicly Acknowledged the Records that
Plaintiff Requests. ................................................................................................. 26
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 33
-i-
PDF Page 6
Case 1:23-cv-01816-BAH
Document 43
Filed 11/11/24
Page 5 of 9
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
ACLU v. Dep’t of Def.,
628 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................... 19, 20, 24
Afshar v. Dep’t. of State,
702 F.2d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ........................................................................................ 31, 32
Am. First Legal Found. v. FBI,
Civ. A. No. 23-2172, 2024 WL 4607496 (D.D.C. Oct. 29, 2024) ................................. passim
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242 (1986) ................................................................................................................. 9
Blackwell v. FBI,
646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................ 18, 19
Boyd v. Crim. Div. of Dep’t of Just.,
475 F.3d 381 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................ 18
Brayton v. Off. of U.S. Trade Rep.,
641 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 9
Canaday v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs.,
545 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2008) ........................................................................................ 17
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317 (1986) ................................................................................................................. 9
CIA v. Sims,
471 U.S. 159 (1985) ............................................................................................................... 25
CREW v. Dep’t of Just.,
746 F.3d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................. 12
CREW v. Dep’t of Just.,
854 F.3d 675 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................ 11
Davis v. Dep’t of Just.,
968 F.2d 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1992) .............................................................................................. 11
Dep’t of Just. v. Reps. Comm. for Freedom of Press,
489 U.S. 749 (1989) ......................................................................................................... 11, 17
Dep’t of State v. Wash. Post Co.,
456 U.S. 595 (1982) ............................................................................................................... 10
DiBacco v. Dep’t of Army,
926 F.3d 827 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................ 25
- ii -
PDF Page 7
Case 1:23-cv-01816-BAH
Document 43
Filed 11/11/24
Page 6 of 9
DiBacco v. U.S. Army,
795 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................ 24
Frontier Found. v. Dep’t of Just.,
739 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................... 9
Frugone v. CIA,
169 F.3d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................ 27
Gardels v. CIA,
689 F.2d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1982) .............................................................................................. 10
Graff v. FBI,
822 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2011) .......................................................................................... 17
Higgins v. Dep’t of Just.,
919 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D.D.C. 2013) ........................................................................................ 11
Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Def.,
715 F.3d 937 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................ 20
Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
514 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2007) ............................................................................................ 17
Jurdi v. United States,
485 F. Supp. 3d 83 (D.D.C. 2020) .......................................................................................... 11
Knight First Amend. Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. CIA,
11 F.4th 810 (D.C. Cir. 2021) .......................................................................................... 27, 28
Leopold v. CIA,
987 F.3d 163 (D.C. Cir. 2021) .......................................................................................... 27, 32
Marino v. DEA,
685 F.3d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................. 28
Mobley v. CIA,
806 F.3d 568 (D.C. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................... 26, 27, 30
Moore v. CIA,
666 F.3d 1330 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................... passim
Morley v. CIA,
508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2007) .............................................................................................. 24
Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish,
541 U.S. 157 (2004) ................................................................................................... 17, 18, 19
Nat’l Ass’n of Retired Fed. Emps. v. Horner,
879 F.2d 873 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ................................................................................................ 19
- iii -
PDF Page 8
Case 1:23-cv-01816-BAH
Document 43
Filed 11/11/24
Page 7 of 9
Phillippi v. CIA,
546 F.2d 1009 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ........................................................................................ 1, 3, 4
SafeCard Servs. v. SEC,
926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) .............................................................................................. 12
Schaerr v. Dep’t of Just.,
69 F.4th 924 (D.C. Cir. 2023) ................................................................................................ 10
U.S. Section, Int’l Boundary & Water Comm’n, U.S.-Mex.,
740 F.3d 195 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................ 11
PETA v. NIH,
745 F.3d 535 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................ 10
Weisberg v. Dep’t of Just.,
627 F.2d 365 (D.C. Cir. 1980) .................................................................................................. 9
Wolf v. CIA,
473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................ passim
Statutes
5 U.S.C. § 552 ...................................................................................................................... passim
50 U.S.C. § 3024 .......................................................................................................................... 24
50 U.S.C. § 3507 .......................................................................................................................... 25
- iv -
PDF Page 9
Case 1:23-cv-01816-BAH
Document 43
Filed 11/11/24
Page 8 of 9
Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”),
and Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) (collectively, “Defendants”),1 by and through
undersigned counsel, respectfully submit this memorandum of points and authorities in support of
their cross-motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 56 and
in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 44).
INTRODUCTION
This case arises from numerous Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests that
Plaintiff Aaron Greenspan submitted to the FBI, CIA, DEA, Executive Office for U.S Attorneys,
Department of State, and the Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in 2022
and 2023. See ECF No. 35 (2nd Am. Compl.). The requests sought criminal investigative
documents concerning third-parties, Bola Ahmed Tinubu (“Tinubu”), Lee Andrew Edwards,
Mueez Abegboyega Akande, and Abiodun Agbele (“Agbele”), who, according to Plaintiff,
participated in “an international drug trafficking and money laundering ring with operations in
Chicago, Illinois.” ECF No. 41-1 (Pl.’s Mem.), at 1. The remaining disputes involve Defendants’
Glomar responses2 to Plaintiff’s request for records about Tinubu (the President of Nigeria) and
the DEA’s Glomar response to Plaintiff’s request for records about Agbele.
1
Plaintiff also sued the Executive Office for U.S Attorneys, Department of State, and the
Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, but on August 13, 2024, he voluntarily
dismissed those defendants. ECF No. 40 (Stip. of Dismissal); Min. Order of Aug. 13, 2024.
2
The phrase “Glomar response” originated from a FOIA case that sought information
concerning a ship named the “Hughes Glomar Explorer,” and the CIA refused to confirm or deny
its relationship with the Glomar vessel because to do so would compromise the national security
or divulge intelligence sources and methods. Phillippi v. CIA, 546 F.2d 1009, 1010 (D.C. Cir.
1976). Glomar responses are proper “if the fact of the existence or nonexistence of agency records
falls within a FOIA exemption.” Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370, 374 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
PDF Page 10
Case 1:23-cv-01816-BAH
Document 43
Filed 11/11/24
Page 9 of 9
The FBI and DEA properly asserted Glomar responses under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C)
because the requests seek criminal investigative documents pertaining to third parties that, if they
existed, would interfere with the third parties’ substantial privacy interests in not being associated
with law enforcement investigative records. The CIA properly asserted Glomar responses under
FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3 because confirming or denying the existence or nonexistence of records
related to Tinubu would reveal classified information that is protected from disclosure by executive
order and statute. To the extent that Plaintiff attempts to argue that the existence of the requested
records have been officially acknowledged, such that a Glomar response could not be used, this
argument will not succeed for numerous reasons—not the least of which Plaintiff never
demonstrated that such an acknowledgement had ever been publicly and officially made by
Defendants.
There are three central questions before the Court, and Plaintiff’s case fails at each step.
First, whether an affidavit of an agent of the Department of Treasury, IRS, pierces the Glomar
responses of the Defendants, who are not part of the Department of Treasury. That is, whether the
affidavit of an IRS agent constitutes an official acknowledgment of the FBI, DEA, and CIA that
the records requested by Plaintiff exist. Under Circuit precedent, the answer is no.
Second, whether a complaint brought by United States Attorney’s Office of the Northern
District of Illinois seeking forfeiture of seized funds in Tinubu’s bank accounts, based on the IRS
agent’s affidavit, transforms the affidavit into an official and documented public disclosure
confirming that the FBI, DEA, and CIA records requested by Plaintiff exist. The answer to that
question is also no.
Third, even if it is presumed that the affidavit from an agent of one agency is imputed to
other agencies (which the law forbids), Plaintiff must establish that the prior disclosure matches
2
Back to 
