16 July, 2021 update on the Byrd, von Alvensleben, Doolittle Report FOIA case.
CIA has filed an answer, see below, reversing their previous position that they had not received the request. Now they admit it was delivered to them. This permits the case to proceed without further delay. CIA says they are now processing the request.
* * * * *
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ASSASSINATION ARCHIVES AND RESEARCH CENTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 21-1237 (CRC)
ANSWER
Defendant, Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA” or “Defendant”) by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this Answer to the Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 1, “Complaint”) filed by Plaintiffs, Assassination Archives and Research Center and James H. Lesar (collectively “AARC” or “Plaintiffs”). This case arises under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552.
To the extent the Complaint refers to or quotes from external documents, statutes, or other sources, Defendant may refer to such materials for their accurate and complete contents in response; however, Defendant’s references are not intended to be, and should not be construed to be, an admission that the cited materials are: (a) correctly cited or quoted by Plaintiffs; (b) relevant to this, or any Case 1:21-cv-01237-CRC Document 10 Filed 07/16/21 Page 1 of 8
2
other, action; or (c) admissible in this, or any other, action. Defendant expressly denies all allegations in the Complaint, including the relief sought, that are not specifically admitted or otherwise qualified in this Answer. Defendant responds to the Complaint in like numbered paragraphs as follows:
1. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of this lawsuit, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph.1
2. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, requested relief, and characterization of this lawsuit of this lawsuit, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE2
3. This paragraph contains Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning jurisdiction and venue, which consist of legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction subject to the terms and limitations of FOIA. Defendant
1 This answer is being submitted in 14-point font as a courtesy to Plaintiff and in response to footnote 1 of the Complaint.
2 For ease of reference, Defendant refers to Plaintiffs’ headings and titles, but to the extent those headings and titles could be construed to contain factual allegations, those allegations are denied. Case 1:21-cv-01237-CRC Document 10 Filed 07/16/21 Page 2 of 8
3
further admits that venue lies in this judicial district for a proper claim under 5 U.S.C. § 552. 4. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in this paragraph.
5. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in this paragraph.
6. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in this paragraph.
7. This paragraph consists of legal conclusion, broad generalizations, and characterizations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph.
8. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in this paragraph.
9. Defendant admits that the CIA is federal agency subject to the FOIA. The remainder of this paragraph consists of a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph.
Case 1:21-cv-01237-CRC Document 10 Filed 07/16/21 Page 3 of 8
4
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
The Freedom of Information
10. This paragraph consists of a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant acknowledges the general purpose of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and avers that not all agency records are subject to the statute.
11. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of one provision of the FOIA and legal conclusions, to which no response is required.
12. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of one provision of the FOIA and legal conclusions, to which no response is required.
13. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of one provision of the FOIA and legal conclusions, to which no response is required.
14. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of one provision of the FOIA and legal conclusions, to which no response is required.
15. This paragraph contains Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning jurisdiction and remedy, which consist of legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction subject to the terms and limitations of FOIA, which would rarely, if ever, warrant granting immediate injunctive relief based solely upon the allegations in the complaint. Case 1:21-cv-01237-CRC Document 10 Filed 07/16/21 Page 4 of 8
5
16. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of a portion of the statute or legal conclusions, to which no response is required.
FACTS GIVING RISE TO PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM FOR RELIEF
17. Defendant admits delivery of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request. The remainder of this paragraph contains Plaintiffs’ description of its FOIA request, to which no response is required.
18. The allegations in the first sentence do not pertain to Defendant and require no response. With respect to the allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph, Defendant admits that it had not released any records in response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request as of the date they filed the complaint in this action.
19. Defendant admits that it has not yet made a final determination concerning Plaintiffs’ FOIA request dated July 4, 2020.
20. Defendant admits that it has not released any records in response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request as of the date they filed the complaint in this action.
21. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant admits that it has not yet made a determination on Plaintiffs’ FOIA request.
22. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of unspecified records and legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a
Case 1:21-cv-01237-CRC Document 10 Filed 07/16/21 Page 5 of 8
6
response is deemed required, Defendant avers that the request is the best evidence of its contents.
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM FOR RELIEF
CLAIM ONE
(Failure to Produce Records Under the FOIA)
23. Defendant realleges and incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Answer as if fully stated herein.
24. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph.
25. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph.
26. Defendant admits that it has not yet released any non-exempt records responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA July 4, 2020 FOIA request, but otherwise denies as stated because Defendant has previously released records to both Plaintiffs in response to other FOIA requests.
27. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The remainder of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, including sub-paragraphs (a) through (f), contains Plaintiffs’ requested relief, to which no responses are required. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or to any relief whatsoever. Case 1:21-cv-01237-CRC Document 10 Filed 07/16/21 Page 6 of 8
7
DEFENSES
Defendant reserves the right to amend, alter, and supplement the defenses contained in this Answer as the facts and circumstances giving rise to this Complaint become known to Defendant through the course of this litigation. Defendant does not assume the burden of proving any of these defenses or elements of them where the burden is properly on Plaintiffs as a matter of law.
FIRST DEFENSE
Plaintiffs are not entitled to compel the production of any record or portion of any record protected from disclosure by one or more of the exemptions or exclusions to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552.
SECOND DEFENSE
This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over any of Plaintiffs’ request to the extent that any requested relief exceeds the relief authorized by the FOIA.
THIRD DEFENSE
Defendant has not improperly withheld any records requested by Plaintiffs under FOIA.
FOURTH DEFENSE
The Complaint includes claims upon which relief cannot be granted.
FIFTH DEFENSE
Plaintiffs are neither eligible for nor entitled to attorneys’ fees or costs in this matter. Case 1:21-cv-01237-CRC Document 10 Filed 07/16/21 Page 7 of 8
8
SIXTH DEFENSE
To the extent that Plaintiffs failed to satisfy prerequisites to suit, this Court lacks jurisdiction over any matter as well as over any requests or allegations that are not contained in the FOIA request at issue in this action.
***
Dated: July 16, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
CHANNING D. PHILLIPS
D.C. Bar # 415793
Acting United States Attorney
BRIAN P. HUDAK
Acting Chief, Civil Division
/s/ Stephanie R. Johnson
STEPHANIE R. JOHNSON
D.C. Bar # 1632338
Assistant United States Attorney
Civil Division
555 4th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
Attorneys for Defendant
Case 1:21-cv-01237-CRC Document 10 Filed 07/16/21 Page 8 of 8
RELATED: CIA Responds to AARC FOIA suit on CIA’s 1963 study of plots to assassinate Adolf Hitler
RELATED: AARC Seeking Documents relating to D.H. Byrd, Werner von Alvensleben, Jr. and the Doolittle Report
____________________________________________________________
25 May, 2021 UPDATE: C. A. No. 20-1527 (TNM)
ECF. No. 25 May 24, 2021 Corrected JSR
ECF. No. 25 May 24, 2021 Corrected JSR
13 Erratum Non-release 210521 Rec’d 210524
13 Erratum Non-release 210521 Rec’d 210524
Status Report Statement May 21 21(3) 1108pm
Status Report Statement May 21 21(3) 1108pm
************************************************************
COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF CIA AND AGAINST SUMMARY REVERSAL IN HARDWAY, et al., v. CIA
17 May, 2021
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 20-5172 September Term, 2020
1:17-cv-01433-TJK
Filed On: May 17, 2021
Danny Lynn Hardway, et al.,
Appellants
v.
Central Intelligence Agency,
Appellee
BEFORE: Tatel, Millett, and Wilkins, Circuit Judges
O R D E R
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto,
and the reply; and the motion for summary reversal, and the opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted and the motion
for summary reversal be denied. The merits of the parties’ positions are so clear as to
warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297
(D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court correctly concluded that the Central
Intelligence Agency’s (“CIA”) search in response to appellants’ Freedom of Information
Act (“FOIA”) and Privacy Act request was adequate. See Mobley v. CIA, 806 F.3d 568,
581 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“Agency affidavits — so long as they are relatively detailed and
non-conclusory — are accorded a presumption of good faith, which cannot be rebutted
by purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other
documents.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Appellants have failed to present
arguments on appeal challenging the district court’s conclusions regarding whether the
CIA should have provided proof that certain records had been destroyed, or conducted
a separate search for records about the destruction of those materials. See U.S. ex rel.
Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“Ordinarily, arguments
that parties do not make on appeal are deemed to have been waived.”). In addition, by
failing to address on appeal the district court’s rationale, appellants have forfeited any
challenge to the district court’s conclusion that the CIA’s “date-of-search cut-off” was
reasonable with respect to the request for records related to the agency’s search
process. See Al-Tamimi v. Adelson, 916 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“A party forfeits an
argument by . . . [m]entioning [it] in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to do
counsel’s work, create the ossature for the argument, and put flesh on its bones.”
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 20-5172 September Term, 2020
The district court also correctly concluded that the CIA properly withheld the
names and signatures of its employees from responsive records pursuant to FOIA
Exemption 3, in conjunction with the CIA Act, 50 U.S.C. § 3507 (exempting the CIA from
disclosing “the organization, functions, names, official titles, salaries, or numbers of
personnel employed by the [CIA]”). See DiBacco v. Dep’t of the Army, 926 F.3d 827,
834-35 (D.C. Cir. 2019). Because the court has concluded that these withholdings were
justified under FOIA Exemption 3, it need not consider whether they were also justified
under FOIA Exemption 6.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/
Tatiana Magruder
Deputy Clerk
To download this ruling as a PDF, click 17521 Order Granting CIA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE Document(284)
**************************************************************************************************************************
Following is a new feature to provide information and updates on AARC court cases. Please bookmark for future additions.
4 July, 2020
Daniel S. Alcorn
Attorney-at-law
xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xx
Xxxxxxxxx, XX
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
July 4, 2020
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
Information and Privacy Coordinator
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, D.C. 20505
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
Dear Information and Privacy Coordinator:
On behalf of my clients Assassination Archives and Research Center, Inc. and attorney James
H. Lesar, I make the following request of the CIA under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC
Sec. 552:
1. Search for and release all records or information in any format related to David Harold
Byrd (deceased) of Dallas, Texas. Mr. Byrd died on September 14, 1986 (see attached
obituary from the Dallas Times-Herald). Mr. Byrd owned the Texas School Book
Depository Building at the time of the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963, and
reportedly removed the “sniper’s window” from the building after the assassination and
displayed it in his mansion. Mr. Byrd was an owner and financier of government
contracting companies including Texas Engineering Manufacturing Company (TEMCO),
E-Systems, and Ling-TEMCO-Vaught (LTV). E-Systems was well known as a CIA
contractor, so much so that in 1975 CIA solicited E-Systems to purchase its proprietary
airline, Air America. David Harold Byrd was also active in the oil business and varied
other business enterprises. David Harold Byrd co-founded the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) in
1941 and served in command capacities in CAP until the early 1960’s. Civil Air Patrol is
the official auxilary of the US Air Force. In the 1950’s Mr. Byrd served with Cord
Meyer, Sr. on the national executive board of CAP (Cord Meyer, Jr. was a ranking CIA
executive).
2. Search for and release all records and information in any format related to Werner von
Alvensleben, Jr. (died 1998), of Mozambique (formerly Portuguese East Africa). Mr.
Alvensleben owned and operated the big game hunting company named Safarilandia in
Portuguese East Africa, later Mozambique. According to released Office of Strategic
Services (OSS) records, Mr. Alvensleben served as a valued double agent for OSS during
World War II in Portuguese East Africa. OSS records state that Mr. Alvensleben was a
member of the Bavarian Military Police in 1933, headed by Heinrich Himmler (the
Bavarian Military Police became the Nazi SS, according to OSS records). In 1933 Mr.
Alvensleben was sent to Austria to participate in the assassination of an Austrian official.
Mr. Alvensleben was arrested by the Austrians and imprisoned for this activity.
According to reports in the Dallas Morning News, Mr. Alvensleben was in Dallas, Texas
as a guest of David Harold Byrd in late 1963. Further, David Harold Byrd was reported
to be present at Mr. Alvensleben’s Safarilandia on November 22, 1963, the day of
President Kennedy’s murder. Due to Mr. Alvensleben’s service as a valued double agent
for OSS in World War II, it is likely that Mr. Alvensleben served as an asset of the CIA
after the war, or had contact with the CIA.
3. Search for and release all records and information in any format related to the Doolittle
Report of 1954 and its appendices A-D. The Doolittle Report was the result of a
commission established by President Eisenhower to study the activities of the CIA and
headed by General James Doolittle. The Doolittle Report called for more aggressive CIA
covert activities that had previously been believed to be repugnant and contrary to
American values. Requesters seek full release of the requested materials. As shown in
the attached obituary of David Harold Byrd, General Doolittle and Mr. Byrd were
substantial friends who shared an interest in aviation from the early years. Mr. Byrd and
General Doolittle were Safari hunting partners on several occasions.
If it is your position that any portion of the requested records is exempt from disclosure,
Requesters request that you provide them with an index of those documents as required under
Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974). As you are
aware, a Vaughn index must describe each document claimed as exempt with sufficient
specificity “to permit a reasoned judgment as to whether the material is actually exempt under
FOIA.” Founding Church of Scientology v. Bell, 603 F.2d 945, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
Moreover, the Vaughn index must “describe each document or portion thereof withheld, and for
each withholding it must discuss the consequences of supplying the sought-after information.”
King v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 830 F.2d 210, 223-24 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (emphasis added). Further,
“the withholding agency must supply ‘a relatively detailed justification, specifically identifying
the reasons why a particular exemption is relevant and correlating those claims with the
particular part of a withheld document to which they apply.’” Id. at 224 (citing Mead Data
Central v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 251 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
In the event that you contend some portions of the requested records are properly exempt
from disclosure, please disclose any reasonably segregable non-exempt portions of the requested
records. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). Claims of nonsegregability must be made with the same degree
of detail as required for claims of exemptions in a Vaughn index. If a request is denied in whole,
please state specifically that it is not reasonable to segregate portions of the record for release.
Public Interest Fee Waiver Request
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) requesters request a waiver of fees
associated with processing this request for records based on the fact that a waiver is in the public
interest. The subject of this request concerns the operations of the federal government and its
expenditures, and the disclosures will likely contribute to a better understanding of relevant
government procedures by the general public in a significant way. Moreover, the request is
primarily and fundamentally for non-commercial purposes. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals
has recognized that Congress amended FOIA to ensure that public interest fee waivers be
“liberally construed in favor of waivers for noncommercial requesters”. Judicial Watch, Inc. v.
Rossotti, 326 F.3d 1309,1312 (D.C.Cir. 2003). Assassination Archives and Research Center and
Mr. Lesar are noncommercial requesters and thus falls in the category of authors, researchers and
public interest groups favored for a fee waiver. Campbell v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 164 F.3d
20,35 (D.C.Cir. 1998).
The Assassination Archives and Research Center (“AARC”) was founded in 1984 as a
non-profit organization to house records related to political assassinations and to encourage
research in the field. Mr. Lesar was a cofounder in 1984 and has served as President of the
Center since 1991. AARC maintains a website which includes a public library of released
government documents for use of the public. AARC maintains the largest collection of materials
on the assassination of President Kennedy in private hands.
Sincerely,
/s/ Daniel S. Alcorn
Daniel S. Alcorn
Counsel for Requesters
Enclosure-
Byrd-von Alvensleben- Doolittle FOIA request + obit
*************************************************************************************************************************
17 June, 2020
AARC’s Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court –
The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that AARC’s petition for a writ of certiorari has been distributed to the Justices for consideration at their September 29, 2020 conference. This is the first conference of the new term that begins in October.
Click HERE for background and history of this important case.
| No. 19-1273 |
|
| Title: | Assassination Archives and Research Center, Petitioner v. Central Intelligence Agency |
| Docketed: | May 8, 2020 |
| Linked with 19A1010 | |
| Lower Ct: | United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit |
| Case Numbers: | (18-5280) |
| Decision Date: | October 11, 2019 |
| Rehearing Denied: | December 10, 2019 |
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
| Mar 09 2020 | Application (19A1010) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 9, 2020 to May 8, 2020, submitted to The Chief Justice. |
| Main DocumentLower Court Orders/OpinionsProof of Service | |
| Mar 13 2020 | Application (19A1010) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until May 8, 2020. |
| Apr 28 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 8, 2020) |
| PetitionAppendixProof of Service | |
| Jun 08 2020 | Waiver of right of respondent Central Intelligence Agency to respond filed. |
| Main Document | |
| Jun 17 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020. |
| NAME | ADDRESS | PHONE |
| Attorneys for Petitioner | ||
| Daniel S. Alcorn Counsel of Record |
Attorney at Law xxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxxxxx xxxxx |
xxx-xxx-xxxx |
| Party name: Assassination Archives and Research Center | ||
| Attorneys for Respondent | ||
| Noel J. Francisco Counsel of Record |
Solicitor General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 |
xxx-xxx-xxxx |
| Party name: Central Intelligence Agency | ||
*********************************************************************************************************************
28 February, 2018
Talbot Response to Govt Motion for Summary Judgment
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff David Talbot (“Talbot”) in support of his opposition to Defendants, Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) and Department of State’s, (“DOS”) Motion for Summary Judgment and in support of his Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment against the CIA and DOS offers the following memorandum of points and authorities.
BACKGROUND
Talbot’s Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request of May 6, 2013, to DOS sought passport and visa records pertaining to two deceased CIA officers, William King Harvey (“Harvey”) and F. Mark Wyatt (“Wyatt”). Records on Harvey were requested for the period of January 1, 1950, to July 1, 1976. Records on Wyatt were sought for the period of January 1, 1948, through 1975. Talbot’s FOIA request to DOS also sought an 8×10 glossy photograph of both Harvey and Wyatt. Complaint Ex. 1, Doc. No. 1-6.
Talbot’s FOIA request of May 6, 2013, to CIA sought: 1) all records pertaining to temporary duty (“TDY”) travel for Harvey during the period January 1, 1950, through July 1, 1976 and for Wyatt during the period January 1, 1948 through 1975; 2) all passport and visa records pertaining to Wyatt and Harvey; 3) all photographs of Harvey and Wyatt; and 4) all records reflecting duty assignments to any station, post, base, unit or other component of the CIA for Harvey during the period January 1, 1950, through July 1, 1976 and for Wyatt during the period January 1, 1948 through 1975. Talbot’s request also sought a fee waiver on the basis of his status as a journalist. Complaint Ex. 2, Doc. No. 1-11.
DOS released ten documents on Wyatt, six in full and four with redactions based on Exemption 6, on July 19, 2017. Stein Decl. ^ 11 & Ex. 9, Doc. No. 17-3. DOS advised Talbot on
December 15, 2015, that it had been unable to locate any responsive record on Harvey and requested further identifying information about him be provided. Complaint Ex. 4, Doc. No. 1-9. Talbot provided DOS with Harvey’s date and place of birth, two pseudonyms Harvey had been known to have used, and the names of Harvey’s parents, on April 14, 2016. Complaint Ex. 5, Doc. No. 1-10. DOS advised Talbot on June 8, 2017, that it had not located any responsive records on Harvey. Stein Decl. ^ 8 & Ex. 6, Doc. No. 17-3. DOS searches were limited to the Office of Passport Services within the Bureau of Consular Affairs (“PPT”).
By letter dated April 16, 2016, Talbot submitted an additional request to DOS seeking records relating to DOS’s search for records responsive to Talbot’s FOIA request of May 6, 2013. Complaint Ex. 5 addition, Doc. No. 12-1. The letter was delivered to DOS by U.S. Certified Mail on April 21, 2016. Hardway Decl. ^ 5, Ex. 5. DOS has conducted no search based upon this request.
CIA advised Talbot on July 14, 2014, that it had located 277 documents consisting of 419 pages regarding Harvey that had been previously released in response to an earlier request. CIA advised Talbot, on February 20, 2015, that it had not located any responsive records regarding Wyatt. Complaint Ex. 9, Doc. No. 1-14. CIA discovered approximately 300 additional pages of responsive documents relating to Harvey after the Complaint had been filed in this case. Shiner Decl. ^ 15, Doc. No. 17-5. CIA released 13 additional redacted documents to Talbot on August 31, 2017. Id. at ^ 17. With the exception of 60 documents which were withheld in full, CIA released the remaining responsive documents, some in full, but most redacted, on September 29, 2017.