Lenz v. Cent. Intelligence Agency

1

PATRICK LENZ, Co-Executor of the Estate of Harry S. Stonehill, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendant.

No. 1:20-cv-3327-RCL

United States District Court, District of Columbia

September 30, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HON ROYCE C. LAMBERTH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In 2018, Pauline Dale Stonehill, acting as co-executor and co-administrator of the estate of her late husband, Harry S Stonehill, submitted a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Compl., ECF No. 1. This request, consisting of nine separate inquiries, seeks various records relating to the 1962 raid of Mr. Stonehill's businesses in the Philippines and the extent of the U.S. government's role in that raid. The CIA failed to respond to Mrs Stonehill's request, and in 2020, she brought this action to compel disclosure. Mrs. Stonehill is now deceased, and the co-executor of Mr. Stonehill's estate, Dr. Patrick Lenz was substituted as the named plaintiff. ECF No. 68.

Over a period of several years, the CIA conducted a search that resulted in the identification of 36 documents, two of which the CIA released in part and 34 of which the CIA withheld in full pursuant to various FOIA exemptions. Five of these documents were also referred to other agencies-the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Department of Justice Tax Division (DOJ Tax), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)-and these agencies asserted more exemptions to protect their own equities. Finally, the CIA issued a Glomar response, refusing to confirm or deny the existence of documents responsive to portions of Plaintiff's FOIA request. Both parties have moved for summary judgment. Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (“CIA Mot.”), ECF No. 43; Pl.'s Cross Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pl.'s Mot.”), ECF No. 50.

As explained below, the Court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART the CIA's motion for summary judgment. The Court will GRANT the CIA's motion for summary judgment regarding its use of Glomar and will DENY Plaintiff's motion on that issue. But the Court will DENY the CIA's motion for summary judgment with respect to its use of FOIA exemptions to withhold public documents and with respect to the adequacy of its Vaughn index. Specifically, the Court will ORDER the CIA to produce the public documents that Plaintiff already identified (Documents 3-15 and Documents 17-22) and submit an updated Vaughn index with requisite specificity to justify any remaining redactions on those pages. For the documents which Plaintiff did not yet identify (Document 16 and Documents 23-36), the Court will ORDER the CIA to submit an updated Vaughn index with adequate descriptions, or otherwise produce the documents in full. And for Documents 1 and 2, the only two documents released in part, the Court will ORDER the CIA to update its Vaughn index with adequate descriptions to justify remaining redactions.

I. BACKGROUND

This case forms part of an extensive history of litigation pertaining to the 1962 Stonehill raids in the Philippines. The Court will provide a brief overview for the purposes of resolving the pending motions.

A. Factual History

In the 1950s and early 1960s, Harry S. Stonehill and his business partner, Robert P. Brooks, established a vast business empire of sixteen different corporations in the Philippines, “the most prominent” of which was the United States Tobacco Company. United States v. Est. of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415, 418 (9th Cir. 2011). Amid allegations of illegal activity within the companies, the FBI and the Philippine National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) began to investigate Stonehill's businesses. Id. at 418-419. On March 3, 1962, the NBI carried out a “massive” raid on the Stonehill businesses in the Philippines, conducted by approximately 200 NBI agents and targeting approximately seventeen different Stonehill corporations. Id. at 419. Many of the seized documents seized in the course of these raids were shared with U.S. authorities, “and eventually led to a $17.6 million tax judgment in the Ninth Circuit against Stonehill and his partner that ‘economically destroyed Stonehill.'” Stonehill v. I.R.S., No. 19-cv-3644 (RDM), 2021 WL 1092166, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2021) (internal citations omitted); Compl. ¶ 22.

In the decades since, the Stonehill family has fought to reverse that judgment. Most relevant to the instant case is the Ninth Circuit's ruling on Mr. Stonehill's Rule 60(b)(6) motion (referred to throughout this opinion as the “Rule 60(b) litigation”). In 2000, Mr. Stonehill moved to set aside the tax judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), arguing that the U.S. government had misrepresented the extent of their involvement in the raids and violated the Fourth Amendment to obtain the judgment. Stonehill, 660 F.3d at 420. Mr. Stonehill then passed away in 2002. After a protracted litigation cycle, in 2011, the Ninth Circuit denied Mr. Stonehill's Rule 60(b) motion, stating that although he had demonstrated “misconduct” by the government, “it [was] insufficient to demonstrate fraud on the court.” Id. at 417.

The Stonehill family has continued to seek information regarding the Stonehill raids in numerous FOIA requests and subsequent lawsuits, bringing this Court to the current action.

B. Procedural History

On October 11, 2018, Mrs. Stonehill submitted a FOIA request to the CIA seeking records “concerning Harry S. Stonehill, Menhart Spielman, Jose G. Lukban, and Damaso A Nocon from the time period January 1, 1955, through January 1, 1974, including but not limited to:

1. All records related to or communications to or from C.I.A. Director John H. Richardson;

2. All records related to and/or communications to or from Menhart Spielman;

3. All records related to and/or communications to or from CIA agent Joseph (John J.) McGee including but not limited to notes or memoranda prepared about the conference held on February 21, 1966 to interview Mr. McGee at the IRS Commissioner's office and the February 7, 1962 memorandum from FBI agent Robert Hawley discussed during that conference;

4. All records related to and/or communications to or from Damaso [Danny] A. Nocon, Philippine National Bureau of Investigation (N.B.I.);

5. All records related to or communication to or from N.B.I. Director Jose G. Lukban;

6. All records related to or communications to or from C.I.A. Deputy Director Don Richardson;

7. All records related to United States A.I.D. Public Safety Group in Manila regarding wiretapping and/or the raids conducted on Harry S. Stonehill's businesses on March 2-3, 1962;

8. All records, including transcripts, relating to CIA, FBI or NBI wiretapping of Harry Stonehill, Robert P. Brooks, Menhart Spielman and the U.S. Tobacco Company in the Philippines; and

9. All records relating to the CIA's advice and assistance to the Philippine National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agents related to various investigative techniques including the use and installation of wiretap equipment and funding and payments to Joseph J. Lukban or Damaso Nocon.”

ECF No. 1-5. On November 16, 2020, having received no response from the CIA, Mrs. Stonehill brought this action. Compl. ¶¶ 39-40. The CIA answered the Complaint on December 22, 2020. ECF No. 8. The parties then filed status reports throughout 2021, 2022, and 2023 regarding the status of the search and the CIA's referrals to other agencies.

On January 6, 2022, the CIA issued a final response to Mrs. Stonehill's FOIA request regarding the CIA's review of responsive documents. CIA Mot., Statement of Undisputed Material Fact ¶ 4. The CIA determined that two documents could be released in part, and all other responsive records must be denied in their entirety. Id. The CIA also asserted a Glomar response, declining to confirm or deny the existence of records pertaining to several of the enumerated requests. Id. Lastly, the CIA noted that several documents belonging to other government agencies (now identifiable as Documents 3-7 on the Vaughn index, ECF No. 43-2) were located and were referred to those agencies. Id.

On April 13, 2022, the CIA referred Documents 3-7 to DOJ Tax. Id ¶ 5. On December 9, 2022, in a joint status report, the CIA noted that DOJ Tax further referred those five records to the IRS for additional review. Id ¶ 6. On June 7, 2023, the CIA submitted another status report in which it noted that the IRS determined to withhold Documents 3-7 in full and had also referred these documents to the FBI. Id. ¶ 7. On July 14, 2023, the FBI informed the IRS that it was asserting several additional FOIA exemptions. Id. ¶ 8. Also on July 14, 2023, the CIA provided a Vaughn index to Mrs. Stonehill, listing the exemptions invoked for all 36 documents. Id. ¶ 8.

Mrs. Stonehill died in October 2023. Dr. Patrick Lenz, co-executor of Mr. Stonehill's estate, was substituted as the named plaintiff. Order Granting Mot. for Substitution of Parties, ECF No. 68.

On September 20, 2023, the CIA filed a motion for summary judgment. Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (“CIA Mot.”), ECF No. 43. On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Pl.'s Cross Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pl.'s Mot.”), ECF No. 50. The CIA replied on January 1, 2024. Reply to Opp. to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (“CIA Reply”), ECF No. 70. Plaintiff replied on February 1, 2024. Reply to Opp. to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pl.'s Reply”), ECF No. 72. The motions are ripe for this Court's review.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. The Freedom of Information Act

The FOIA provides an avenue for anyone to request and receive the disclosure of government records. 5 U.S.C. § 552. “FOIA mandates a ‘strong presumption in favor of disclosure.'”...