Am. Ctr. for Law & Justice v. Dep't of State, No. 18-944, 2018 WL 6329454 (D.D.C. Dec. 4, 2018) (Boasberg, J.)

Am. Ctr. for Law & Justice v. Dep't of State, No. 18-944, 2018 WL 6329454 (D.D.C. Dec. 4, 2018) (Boasberg, J.)

Re:  Request for State Department report concerning the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 1:  First, the court holds "that all procedural requirements were satisfied."  The court finds that "Section 1.6 of the Executive Order requires documents at the time they are classified to contain five sets of markings: (1) that the information was within one of the three classification levels; (2) the identity, by name and position, of the original classification authority; (3) the agency and office of origin; (4) instructions for declassification; and (5) a concise reason for classification that, at a minimum, cites the applicable classification categories."  "The Report contains each of these markings."  Responding to plaintiff's argument, the court also finds that "the Order says nothing about a classifier's need to 'make certain' that procedural requirements were met."  "As State correctly asserts, moreover, there are no magic words required to meet this standard."  "Rather, in the absence of bad faith, general statements of procedural compliance may suffice."  Additionally, the court finds that "the Order is clear that '[a]t the time of original classification,' the classification authority must provide 'a concise reason for classification that, at a minimum, cites the applicable classification categories in section 1.4.'"  "This [defendant] has done."  Second, the court holds that "[defendant's declarant] explicitly states that the statements are 'based upon [his] personal knowledge, which in turn is based upon information furnished to [defendant's declarant] in the course of [his] official duties.'"  Additionally, the court finds that "[defendant's declarant] gave a plethora of reasons as to why both § 1.4(b) and (d) were accurate rationales to support classification."  Specifically, "[h]is Declaration also explains specific harms that would likely occur as a result of the information's release."  Finally, the court rejects plaintiff's "claim that State has waived its classification authority through an official acknowledgment" and finds that "the . . . Declaration explicitly states that 'the Department has not previously authorized or officially acknowledged public release of' the specific information withheld."  "ACLJ points to no evidence to the contrary."