·--
, ''!'"
FClR TilE DiSTRICT OF ("uLr:·;".I,',
CITIZENS
UFO SECRECY,
AGA1~ST
) ) ) )
Plaintiff,
v. ~ATIONAL
Civil Action No. 80-1562
) ) ) )
SECURITY AGENCY.
)
Defendant.
Nr:;·jO"ANDtJl-1 AND ORDER
This Fr e e dom of Infol"rr.ation Ac t case is before .the Cpur t on de fen dan t
'
s motion for s unma ry jud£lT:ent.
Plaintiff is
soaking all documents in
def~nd~nt's
r!'~c·s
De f en dan t has provd de d scme material
and liFO phenomena.
bwt has
~!thheld
e)Le!i~pt:ior.s, ::~
other
possession rclatinz to
~ateTial p~~~uant
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)
vario~s
to
(1976).
FOIA
The bu!.1-: of 'the
Z::c<:e::-ial \oo:i t hhe Ld consists of corrmund ca t Lcns intellir;cnce r apor r s , \·ihich de f'endan t
asserts arc protected by Exemp t Lons
1 ~nd 3 of the Freedom of Infol"rr.~tion Act.
ac issue are not :.:~:":"Id~n::
co~unications
Four
cocum~nts
intelligence reports;
ha s \o:ithheld one of these documents in its
enlirety, and portions of three others, pursuant to these
Tile! Cou r t first carefully revie..ce d the public afficHvit of
~Ati0nel ~~curity
~hen.
Agency
offici~l E~cene
nftcr receiving plaintiff's
Yeates and
~pposition. e~n~ined
;;i:!"sO:"l:llly a top secret affidavit from Yeates, s ubmi t t e d by
ct.::('n,bnt in ~~;n~..!!.. s~~cral
~t3:cment
The public nific.'lvit provides a
of the? defendant's position that is
~i~0nsly b01~tercd
bj the
e*trcz::~ly
dc:niled, 21-p2ee in
[i;,'I()s t r.,,-= "he c l a i mod e xemp t i ons have bo en p rope r
Ly and ,
• Tlle ct.:::::71unic;.ticns Ln r c l Lt geucc r cpor r s clearly r c l n t,c to the ino s t, s cn s Lt i.vc 1.lC:tivi.tic·s ('1 the dc Lcn dan t; nne thus
73 St.3t. 63 (1959). ':
,
;..• ':
;...
'.
The in cal,lera f1ffid;wit p r ev i de s the?
'-
-',
-2-
~~_'::"'ll~i t:..X_~E-£.!."£.Y.. £~.!:s.:.....ccni.~c,
608 F. 2 d 1331, 13[;9 - 91 (I). C. Ci r. 1979),
lIS U.S.L.\-!.
1~3Y
3730 (U.S.,
12,1930).
The
Covrr c finds t h a t r e l e a s e of this mnt e r i e l could seriously j~0?nrciize
the work of the agency and the security of the
Fni, t c d
S:;:rC?~.
f~::i.E':::',
t
~.~
cnti£c~y.
its
Unde r' the s t.nndar ds set forth in Hav_den &
ne c La i.in of. Section (b) (3) cxomp t i on mus t be g r an t e d considc~~tion
No
l1ceds to be given tl1c
claim for p r o t e c t Lon unde r Exemp t i on 1.,
:~cditicr.al
s c andrrr ds of Public Law 86-36 have b e en rne t
'.
co~tcnLS
af
=~scriptio~
rh~sc
documents and also has
cf both the documents
v ar Lous clnins un de r Excmp t Lons 1 :-
~oc:n::;en t
.
also finds that tnt> affidavits support
CDu~t
The
The
s .'i:.-e p r ope r .
~nd t
provid~d 2
The
the dcJetions.
3, 5 and 6
2S
to these
The \-.'i t.hhe ld portions ei ther arc not
r c spoc s t.ve to p La i.n t Lf f ' s r e que s t or are properly exemp t e d , 'i'hr'Nlgh~ut
the Court' s xcv iev of this mat e r i e L, the
C:'Ul"t h a s bc-e n avar e of the publi c intc.est in che
UFOs
~nci
"i;~r.C)"
the need to bnlance that interest
s
:H:CO
for s e c r e cy ,
The in
~"!~0~':'!
egni~st
nfL!
c~uvit:
iSS\1~
of
the
p re son t s
, Ailc:"l v ,
,
,1'0"'
"
No. eO-138b (D.C. Cir., fUE'cl t:(l':.
bur (11c CCH:n:
f.~~d:.
,n
~\,.vJ.'-s
. . . . .• .. t ••• ,. ..
;.:. :'..'
Qt.::.
-~
~:';':~::.;';'
.;.,.r=.,:._ .._...... •
: •.
rz ,
1~80),
in ill' r1i!-iC)·eliOr. tl:;,!: ;;1;C' 'P·..lb1i.c ;,:,d • . ~,f .. ..,.. \I.)\ •., •.• lr.t.",ti ,lelC
_ .. ·"·'i -."':'\1" .J
"l~
.. ,"':0
.~.-
S.~_1.1C),.• I~
.'
(
"
-
o·
'
..~~: .}~ . ".
- 3-
For the foregoing reasons. dc, f cn dnn I.: 's l1"vtion [or ~;\.l;;:r..;try
judgment is gr.anted.
TIle
c~se
is disoissed.
SO· ORDERED.
·/0
'1"0·" '.l-.."l"'e"· ,,.,•
v c......
1980 .
'
..
,.
;:.:
-: