Title: Defendents Motion for Summary Judgement in Manning v. DoJ

Document Date: 2015-03-15

Text: Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 23

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHELSEA MANNING,

Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01654-APM

US. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and the
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

Defendants.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby move for summary
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Accompanying this motion is a
memorandum of points and authorities in support of this motion. Defendants respectfully
request that the Court grant this motion for the reasons described in the memorandum and in the
attached declaration.

Dated: March 15, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

BENJAMIN C. MIZER

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

CHANNING D. PHILLIPS
United States Attorney

ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO
Deputy Branch Director
Federal Programs Branch

/s/Aimee W. Brown

AIMEE W. BROWN (IL Bar No. 6316922)
Trial Attorney

United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 23

20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone: (202) 305-0845
Fax: (202) 616-8470
Email: aimee.w.brown@usdoj.gov

Counsel for Defendants

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 3 of 23

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHELSEA MANNING,

Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01654-APM

US. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and the
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 4 of 23

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.............................................................1

BACKGROUND...............................................................2

STANDARD OF REVIEW.......................................................4

ARGUMENT.................................................................6

I. THE FBI CONDUCTED ADEQUATE SEARCHES FOR RESPONSIVE

RECORDS........................................................6

II. THE FBI PROPERLY WITHHELD ALL RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS

UNDER EXEMPTION 7(A)...........................................8

A. The Records Were “Compliled for Law Enforcement Purposes”.8

B. Disclosure of the Records “Could Reasonably Be Expected to

Interfere with Enforcement Proceedings”..................10

CONCLUSION..............................................................16

i

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 5 of 23

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. EPA,

856 F.2d 309 (D.C. Cir. 1988).................................................... 13

Aspin v. Dep’t of Def.,

491 F.2d 24 (d.C. Cir. 1973).....................................................8

Azmy v. Dep’t of Def.,

562 F. Supp. 2d 590 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).............................................. 15

Baldrige v. Shapiro,

455 U.S. 345 (1982)..............................................................4

Bevis v. Dep’t of State,

801 F.2d 1386 (D.C. Cir. 1986)................................................ 10, 12

Campbell v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,

682 F.2d 256 (D.C. Cir. 1982).................................................... 10

Campbellv. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

164 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1998).....................................................9

Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms,

789 F.2d 64 (D.C. Cir. 1986)..................................................... 10

Crowell & Moring v. Dep’t of Def.,

703 F. Supp. 1004 (D.D.C. 1989).................................................. 13

Ctr. for Nat ’l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

331 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2003).................................................passim

Dickerson v. Dep’t of Justice,

992 F.2d 1426 (6th Cir. 1993).................................................... 11

Edmonds v. FBI,

272 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2003).......................................... 12, 13, 14

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Justice Criminal Div.,

82 F. Supp. 3d 307 (D.D.C. 2015)..........................................7, 9, 11, 16

Envtl. Prot. Servs. v. EPA,

364 F. Supp. 2d 575 (N.D.W. Va. 2005)............................................ 14

ii

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 6 of 23

Gardels v. CIA,

689 F.2d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1982)........................................................5

Greenberg v. U.S. Dep ’t of Treasury,

10 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D.D.C. 1998)........................................................6

Hale v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

973 F.2d 894 (10th Cir. 1992).........................................................5

J.P. Stevens & Co. v. Perry,

710 F.2d 136 (4th Cir. 1983).......................................................... 14

Jefferson v. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Prof’l Responsibility,

284 F.3d 172 (D.C. Cir. 2002).........................................................8

Juarez v. Dep’t of Justice,

518 F.3d 54 (D.C. Cir. 2008)...................................................... 11, 14

Kay v. FCC,

976 F. Supp. 23 (D.D.C. 1997)..................................................... 13, 15

Kidd v. Dep’t of Justice,

362 F. Supp. 2d 291 (D.D.C. 2005).....................................................8

Marshall v. FBI,

802 F. Supp. 2d 125 (D.D.C. 2011)...................................................7

McGehee v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

800 F. Supp. 2d 220 (D.D.C. 2011).....................................................7

Meeropol v. Meese,

790 F.2d 942 (D.C. Cir. 1986).........................................................4

Moorefield v. U.S. Secret Serv.,

611 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1980)......................................................... 14

Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army,

920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990)........................................................4, 6

SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC,

926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991)........................................................6

Schrecker v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

349 F.3d 657 (D.C. Cir. 2003).........................................................6

iii

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 7 of 23

Solar Sources, Inc. v. United States,

142 F.3d 1033 (7th Cir. 1998)....................................................... 13

Suzhou Yuanda Enter. Co. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot.,

404 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2005)..................................................... 14

Texas Indep. Producers Legal Action Ass ’n v. IRS,

605 F. Supp. 538 (D.D.C. 1984)......................................................6

U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. For Freedom of Press,

489 U.S. 749 (1989).................................................................5

Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

705 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir. 1983)......................................................6

Statutes

5 U.S.C. § 552..........................................................................4

5 U.S.C. § 552a.........................................................................2

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)....................................................................4

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).................................................................5

5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A)............................................................1, 4, 8

Rules

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56...................................................1, 2

iv

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 8 of 23

INTRODUCTION

On November 28, 2010, the organization WikiLeaks published numerous documents that
it contended were Department of State embassy cables. The following day, then-Attorney
General Eric H. Holder, Jr. stated that the Department of Justice had initiated a criminal
investigation into the potential unauthorized release of classified information. See Ellen
Nakashima and Jerry Markon, WikiLeaks Founder Could Be Charged Under Espionage Act,
Washington Post (Nov. 30, 2010, 12:13 AM), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html. Despite Manning’s conviction, that
investigation continues to this day.

This case arises out of Plaintiff Chelsea Manning’s attempts to obtain information from
the government’s files about that investigation. In February 2014, Manning submitted a FOIA
request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) seeking records relating to the FBI’s
investigation of Manning and alleged civilian co-conspirators’ involvement in disclosure of
“classified and sensitive but unclassified” information. See Ex. A (request to FBI).

Manning’s request is a quintessential example of an improper attempt to use FOIA to
force the government to open its investigative files to public inspection. But Congress did not
enact FOIA to permit such unwarranted intrusion. Through Exemption 7(A), FOIA protects
from disclosure “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes” when the
disclosure of such records “could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement
proceedings.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). In response to Manning’s request, the FBI determined
that all responsive documents are protected from disclosure by Exemption 7(A). Defendants,
accordingly, move for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

1

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 9 of 23

BACKGROUND

On or about February 20, 2014, Manning submitted a FOIA request1 to the FBI seeking
the following:

a. Documents, papers, reports, letters, memoranda, films, electronic data, photographs,
audio and video recordings of or relating to investigation conducted by the
Washington Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S.
Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Virginia into the alleged disclosures of
classified and sensitive but unclassified information by Private First Class (PFC)
Bradley E. Manning beginning in late 2010 and continuing until an unknown date,
but as late as mid-2012.

b. Any other documents, papers, reports, letters, memoranda, films, electronic data,
photographs, audio and video recordings of or relating to the investigation conducted
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern
District of Virginia into alleged civilian co-conspirators of the disclosures of
information by Manning.

See Declaration of David M. Hardy (“Hardy Decl.”), Ex. 1; see also Ex. A. On March 7, 2014,
the FBI sent Manning a letter acknowledging receipt of the request and informing her that the
request “did not contain sufficient information to conduct an adequate search of the Central
Records System” and requesting additional information. See Ex. B. On March 18, 2014,
Manning supplemented her request with the additional personal information requested and made
slight modifications to her request. See Ex. C. Specifically, Manning requested:

a. Documents, papers, reports, letters, memoranda, films, electronic data, photographs,
audio and video recordings of or relating to the investigation conducted by the
Washington Field Office (WFO), the Department of Justice Counterepionage [sic]
Section (CES), the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia
(E.D.Va.) into the alleged disclosures of classified and sensitive by [sic] unclassified
information by then-Private First Class (PFC) Bradley Edward Manning (a.k.a.
Chelsea Elizabeth Manning).”

1 Manning also requested the same information under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
See Hardy Decl. (Ex. 1), Exs. A, C. The Office of Information Policy informed Manning that the
records responsive to her request were exempt from the access provision of the Privacy Act. Ex.

K. Manning’s Complaint in this suit seeks relief only under FOIA. See Compl. at 7.
Nevertheless, in its declaration, the FBI has also provided adequate justification for non-
disclosure under the Privacy Act. See Hardy Decl. ^ 35-36.

2

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 10 of 23

b. Any other documents, papers, reports, letters, memoranda, films, electronic data,
photographs, audio and video recordings of or relating to the investigation conducted
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies into suspected or alleged
civilian co-conspirators of the disclosures alleged to have been conducted by
Manning.

Id. On April 8, 2014, the FBI denied the request. See Ex. F. The FBI explained that the
materials Manning requested were exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 7(A) because
they “are law enforcement records; there is a pending or prospective law enforcement proceeding
relevant to these records, and release of the information in these responsive records could
reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.” Id. Manning appealed the
FBI’s determination to the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy (“OIP”). See
Ex. H. On August 7, 2014, OIP affirmed the denial of Manning’s request. See Ex. K. OIP
explained that the FBI “properly withheld” the requested materials because they consisted of
“information compiled for law enforcement purposes the release of which could reasonably be
expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.” Id. Manning then requested that the
Office of Government Information Services (“OGIS”) at the National Archives and Records
Administration provide mediation regarding the FOIA request. See Ex. L. OGIS further
explained the denial of Manning’s FOIA request, informing Manning that “Exemption 7(A)
remains applicable throughout long-term law enforcement investigations” and “is still applicable
to the records sought at the time of [an] appeal.” Ex. N.

Manning filed her Complaint on October 8, 2015, see ECF No. 1, and Defendants
answered the Complaint on November 25, 2015, see ECF No. 9. Pursuant to the Court’s Minute
Order of December 15, 2015, Defendants now move for summary judgment based on the

3

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 11 of 23

applicability of 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A).2 As set forth in the attached declaration, the FBI
conducted a reasonable search for the records and determined that all responsive records are
protected from disclosure under Exemption 7(A).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, “represents a balance struck by
Congress between the public’s right to know and the government’s legitimate interest in keeping
certain information confidential.” Ctr. for Nat ’l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 331 F.3d
918, 925 (D.C. Cir. 2003). FOIA requires agencies to release documents responsive to a
properly submitted request, except for those documents (or portions of documents) subject to any
of nine statutory exemptions to the general disclosure obligation. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(3),
(b)(1)-(b)(9).

In discharging its obligations under FOIA, an agency generally must conduct a
reasonable search for responsive documents. “In order to obtain summary judgment[,] the
agency must show that it made a good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records,
using methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested.”

Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990). The agency’s search is
evaluated on the basis of affidavits, and “affidavits that explain in reasonable detail the scope and
method of the search conducted by the agency will suffice to demonstrate compliance with the
obligations imposed by the FOIA.” Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942, 952 (D.C. Cir. 1986).

Although FOIA requires agency disclosure under certain circumstances, the statute
recognizes “that public disclosure is not always in the public interest.” Baldrige v. Shapiro, 455

2 Should the Court deny Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment based on
Exemption 7(A), Defendants have preserved their right to invoke and justify additional FOIA
exemptions. See Joint Status Report, ECF No. 11.

4

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 12 of 23

U.S. 345, 352 (1982). FOIA provides nine exemptions that “reflect Congress’ recognition that
the Executive Branch must have the ability to keep certain types of information confidential.”
Hale v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 973 F.2d 894, 898 (10th Cir. 1992), vacated on other grounds, 509
U.S. 918 (1993). To sustain its burden of justifying nondisclosure of information, see 5 U.S.C.

§ 552(a)(4)(B), an agency may submit a declaration or index describing the withheld material
with reasonable specificity, explaining the reasons for nondisclosure, and demonstrating with
reasonable specificity that reasonably segregable material has been released. See U.S. Dep’t of
Justice v. Reporters Comm. For Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 753 (1989). A court reviews
an agency’s response to a FOIA request de novo, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), but given the
unique nature of FOIA cases, an agency declaration is accorded substantial weight. See Gardels
v. CIA, 689 F.2d 1100, 1104 (D C. Cir. 1982).

In evaluating the applicability of Exemption 7(A) in this case, it is important to note that
the information sought by Manning “implicates] national security, a uniquely executive
purview.” Ctr. for Nat’l Sec. Studies, 331 F.3d at 926. Manning seeks records concerning a
government investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. As former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recognized, the disclosure of such information “puts people’s
lives in danger, threatens our national security, and undermines our efforts to work with other
countries to solve shared problems.” See Sec’y Hillary Clinton, Remarks to the Press on Release
of Purportedly Confidential Documents by Wikileaks (Nov. 29, 2010),
http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2010/11/152078.htm. Time and again,
courts have recognized the “propriety of deference to the executive in the context of FOIA
claims which implicate national security.” Ctr. for Nat’l Sec. Studies, 331 F.3d at 927-28.

5

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 13 of 23

ARGUMENT

I. THE FBI CONDUCTED ADEQUATE SEARCHES FOR RESPONSIVE

RECORDS

An agency can show that it discharged its obligations under FOIA and is entitled to
summary judgment by submitting declarations that demonstrate that the agency “made a good
faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using methods which can be reasonably
expected to produce the information requested.” Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 68. “The adequacy of an
agency’s search is measured by a standard of reasonableness, and is dependent upon the
circumstances of the case.” Weisbergv. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir.
1983). Conducting a “reasonable” search is a process that requires “both systemic and case-
specific exercises of discretion and administrative judgment and expertise” and is “hardly an area
in which the courts should attempt to micro manage the executive branch.” Schrecker v. U.S.

Dep’t of Justice, 349 F.3d 657, 662 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

Moreover, an agency’s declaration will be relied upon if it is “relatively detailed,
nonconclusory, and submitted in good faith.” Greenberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 10 F. Supp.
2d 3, 12-13 (D.D.C. 1998). “The standard . . . is not meticulous documentation [of] the details
of an epic search.” Texas Indep. Producers Legal Action Ass ’n v. IRS, 605 F. Supp. 538, 547
(D.D.C. 1984), rev’d in part, 802 F.2d 1483 (D.C. Cir. 1986). A sufficiently detailed declaration
is presumed to be in good faith, a presumption that can be rebutted only with clear evidence of
bad faith. See SafeCardServs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991).

The FBI’s declaration adequately explains the search the agency conducted. The
declaration explains the scope of the conducted search, the search terms used in that search, and
the basis for the FBI’s belief that the search would reasonably be expected to locate any
documents responsive to Manning’s request. Specifically, the FBI indicates that it conducted a

6

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 14 of 23

search of its Central Records System (“CRS”) using a six-way phonetic breakdown of
Manning’s names, including “Manning, Bradley, Edward,” “Manning, Bradley, E,” “Manning,

B, E,” “Manning, Bradley,” “Manning, B,” “Manning, Edward,” “Manning, E,” “Manning,
Chelsea, Elizabeth,” “Manning, Chelsea, E,” “Manning, C, E,” “Manning Chelsea,” “Manning

C, ” and “Manning Elizabeth.” Hardy Decl. ^ 30. The FBI also used Manning’s date of birth,
place of birth, the case number Manning provided and her description of the relevant
investigation (including dates). Id. The FBI used the terms to search both the main entries
(those records indexed to the main subjects of a file) and cross-references (entries pertaining to a
different subject matter in which the relevant individual is merely mentioned or referenced) in its
system. Id. ^ 30-31. Upon review of the results of these searches, the FBI determined that the
search captured records responsive to both parts of Manning’s request—records about herself
and records about alleged civilian co-conspirators. Id. ^ 32. Based on the FBI’s previous
knowledge of these records from a prior FOIA request involving records related to the FBI’s
investigation of the unauthorized disclosure of classified information that was published on the
WikiLeaks website, see Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Dep ’t of Justice CriminalDiv., 82 F. Supp. 3d
307 (D.D.C. 2015) (“EPIC’), and FBI’s further review of the responsive records here, the FBI
concluded that a separate search for records responsive to the second part of Manning’s request
was unnecessary. Hardy Decl. ^ 32. The FBI also determined that the responsive records are part
of and related to pending enforcement proceedings. Id. ^ 30-31.

Courts have routinely found that FBI searches of its CRS fully meet the standards of
adequacy and reasonableness established under FOIA. See, e.g., EPIC, 82 F. Supp. 3d at 317;
Marshall v. FBI, 802 F. Supp. 2d 125, 132-33 (D.D.C. 2011); McGehee v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
800 F. Supp. 2d 220, 229-30 (D.D.C. 2011). Here, a search of the CRS using the above-

7

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 15 of 23

mentioned terms was likely to locate any responsive documents. Hardy Decl. ^ 33. CRS is
where the FBI indexes information about individuals, organizations, events, and other subjects of
investigative interest for future retrieval. Because Manning sought investigative records
pertaining to herself, such information would reasonably be expected to be located in the CRS
via the index search methodology. Id. Accordingly, the FBI’s search was both comprehensive
and sufficient. The FBI “made a good faith effort to search for the records requested,” and its
“methods were reasonably expected to produce the information requested.” Kiddv. Dep’tof
Justice, 362 F. Supp. 2d 291, 294 (D.D.C. 2005). Thus, the Court should enter summary
judgment on this issue in favor of Defendants.

II. THE FBI PROPERLY WITHHELD ALL RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS UNDER
EXEMPTION 7(A)

The FBI determined that all records responsive to Manning’s request are subject to and
are being withheld pursuant to Exemption 7(A), which applies to “records or information
compiled for law enforcement purposes” to the extent that the production of such records “could
reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A).

As detailed below, the FBI has met its burden under FOIA and established that it properly
withheld all responsive records under this exemption.

A. The Records Were “Compiled for Law Enforcement Purposes”

“In assessing whether records are compiled for law enforcement purposes, . . . the focus
is on how and under what circumstances the requested files were compiled, and ‘whether the
files sought relate to anything that can fairly be characterized as an enforcement proceeding.’”
Jefferson v. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Prof’l Responsibility, 284 F.3d 172, 176-77 (D.C. Cir.
2002) (quoting Aspin v. Dep’t of Def., 491 F.2d 24, 27 (D.C. Cir. 1973)). “Because the DOJ is
an agency ‘specializing] in law enforcement, its claim of a law enforcement purpose is entitled

8

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 16 of 23

to deference.” Ctr. for Nat ’l Sec. Studies, 331 F.3d at 926. To demonstrate that the records were
compiled for law enforcement purposes, an agency “must establish (1) ‘a rational nexus between
the investigation and one of the agency’s law enforcement duties;’ and (2) ‘a connection between
an individual or incident and a possible security risk or violation of federal law.’” Id. (quoting
Campbell v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 164 F.3d 20, 32 (D.C. Cir. 1998), as amended (Mar. 3, 1999)).

Here, the FBI’s declaration makes clear that the information withheld under this
exemption was “compiled for law enforcement purposes” because it is part of a broader, ongoing
investigation being conducted by the Department of Justice into the unauthorized disclosure of
classified information published on the WikiLeaks website. Hardy Decl. ^ 39-41. The
investigation of criminal conduct, particularly when it entails serious threats to national security,
is plainly a high-priority law enforcement duty of the Department. See Ctr. for Nat ’l Sec.

Studies, 331 F.3d at 926 (recognizing that the Exemption 7(A) threshold is satisfied by an
investigation concerning “a heinous violation of federal law as well as a breach of this nation’s
security”). Insofar as individuals are being investigated for their role in the unauthorized
disclosure of classified information, there is a clear nexus between the subjects “and a possible
security risk or violation of federal law.” Id. Indeed, in a prior case in this circuit, the Electronic
Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”) made a similar FOIA request for documents relating to the
WikiLeaks investigation, and the court concluded that the responsive records “were quite
obviously related to the FBI[’s] . . . law enforcement duties to enforce criminal laws and to
protect against national security threats.” EPIC, 82 F. Supp. 3d at 319. Because the records at
issue were compiled as part of an FBI investigation into possible violations of federal law, they
were “compiled for law enforcement purposes,” and the threshold inquiry under Exemption 7(A)
is satisfied.

9

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 17 of 23

B. Disclosure of the Records “Could Reasonably Be Expected to Interfere with
Enforcement Proceedings”

The FBI has also determined that the disclosure of the responsive records could
reasonably be expected to interfere with ongoing enforcement proceedings. “Exemption 7(A)
explicitly requires a predictive judgment of the harm that will result from disclosure of
information.” Ctr. for Nat ’l Sec. Studies, 331 F.3d at 927. Given that the Department’s
investigation concerns matters of national security, the declaration must be “viewed in light of
the appropriate deference to the executive on issues of national security.” Id. See also id. at
927-28 (“Just as we have deferred to the executive when it invokes FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3,
we owe the same deference under Exemption 7(A) in appropriate cases,” including those in
which “the government’s declarations raise legitimate concerns that disclosure would impair
national security.”).

In justifying its reliance on Exemption 7(A), the government need not discuss the
exemption on a document-by-document basis. To do so could itself impede the investigation, as
providing details such as the volume of the responsive material or the nature of particular
documents could itself reveal sensitive information that could impede the investigation. Instead,
an agency may “group[] documents into relevant categories that are sufficiently distinct to allow
a court to grasp ‘how each . . . category of documents, if disclosed, would interfere with the
investigation.’” Bevis v. Dep’t of State, 801 F.2d 1386, 1389 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (quoting
Campbell v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 682 F.2d 256, 265 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). As set forth
below, the FBI has reviewed the responsive documents, and identified “functional” categories,
such that the court may “trace a rational link between the nature of the document and the alleged
likely interference.” Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 789 F.2d 64, 67 (D.C.
Cir. 1986). The declaration adequately explains the categories of responsive records, the

10

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 18 of 23

enforcement proceedings to which the responsive records relate, and the likely interference
release of the records would entail.

The declaration explains that the requested documents relate to an ongoing national
security investigation. In 2010, the FBI’s Washington Field Office opened a criminal/national
security investigation into the possible disclosure of classified information that was published on
the WikiLeaks website. Hardy Decl. ^ 39. That investigation concerns potential violations of
federal criminal laws, in the form of serious threats to the national security, and the investigation
continues today. Id. From the terms of her request, it is clear that Manning seeks to obtain
documents concerning that investigation. Although the investigation began several years ago,
the documents relating to it remain under the protection of Exemption 7(A). See EPIC, 82 F.
Supp. 3d at 319-22 (holding that the WikiLeaks investigation documents remained subject to
Exemption 7(A) in light of the ongoing investigation). It is well-established that although
Exemption 7(A) is temporal in nature, it nevertheless remains viable throughout the duration of
long-term investigations. See, e.g., Juarez v. Dep’t of Justice, 518 F.3d 54, 57 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
(recognizing that an investigation that was pending in 2002 remained ongoing in 2008, even
though the investigating agency had interviewed the subject of the investigation several years
prior to 2008, and had—according to the subject—“showed no further interest in [her]
participation in their investigation”); Dickerson v. Dep’t of Justice, 992 F.2d 1426, 1431 (6th Cir.
1993) (affirming the district court’s conclusion in 1991 and 1992 that FBI’s investigation into the
1975 disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa remained open and pending).

In describing the categories of records at issue, the declaration explains that the records
responsive to Manning’s request consist of evidentiary, investigative, and administrative
materials related to the investigation. Hardy Decl. ^ 45. The records are further described by

11

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 19 of 23

type—such as confidential source statements, communications between the FBI and other law
enforcement agencies, and documentary evidence gathered in the course of the investigation—in
ways that indicate the information contained in the materials. Id. ^ 46-47. By describing the
responsive documents in the functional categories, the agency has provided sufficient detail to
meet their burden under Exemption 7(A). See, e.g., Edmonds v. FBI, 272 F. Supp. 2d 35, 54-55
(D.D.C. 2003) (upholding agency’s declaration that grouped withheld material into two
categories, “evidentiary” and “investigative” materials). Cf. Bevis, 801 F.2d at 1390 (rejecting
use of categories such as “letters” that give “absolutely no indication of the substance of the
information contained”).

Moreover, the declaration provides substantive explanations for the harms that would
result from disclosure. For example, the FBI has withheld information that, if disclosed, would
identify potential witnesses and other individuals who have cooperated with the investigation.
Specifically, the FBI has explained that the documents include statements made to the FBI by
sources who were given expressed or implied assurances that their identities would remain
confidential. Hardy Decl. ^ 46(a). These statements contain information provided by individuals
with knowledge of potential criminal activities. Id. As the FBI explains, disclosure of the
information would mean that “the sources that have chosen to cooperate with law enforcement
could be subjected to retaliation, intimidation, or physical or mental harm.” Id. Aside from the
harms that disclosure would cause to the sources themselves, it is the judgment of the FBI that
this would have a chilling effect on these investigations and any future prosecutions resulting
from these cases. Id.

The harms associated with revealing the identities of cooperating individuals are well-
recognized in cases applying Exemption 7(A). See, e.g., Ctr. forNat’lSec. Studies, 331 F.3d at

12

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 20 of 23

929 (discussing courts that have found the “likelihood of witness intimidation and evidence
tampering” to be sufficient concerns under Exemption 7(A)); Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. EPA,
856 F.2d 309, 311 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (agreeing that disclosure might identify individuals who had
assisted investigation by providing documents, and would “thereby subject them to potential
reprisals and deter them from providing further information”); Edmonds, 272 F. Supp. 2d at 55
(recognizing potential harms that would result if disclosure “stifle[d] cooperation” or “le[d] to
the harassment or intimidation of individuals involved in the investigations”); Kay v. FCC, 976
F. Supp. 23, 39 (D.D.C. 1997), aff’d, 172 F.3d 919 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (recognizing that an agency
“need not establish that witness intimidation is certain to occur, only that it is a possibility”);
Crowell & Moring v. Dep’t of Def., 703 F. Supp. 1004, 1011 (D.D.C. 1989) (agreeing that
disclosing witnesses’ identifies would impair the government’s ability to obtain cooperation
during an investigation).

The FBI has also asserted Exemption 7(A) to protect exchanges of information between
the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. Hardy Decl. ^ 46(b). Release of this information
“would reveal the scope and focus of the investigation; identify and tip off individuals of interest
to law enforcement; and provide suspects or targets the opportunity to destroy evidence and alter
their behavior to avoid detection.” Id.

Courts time and again have recognized the harms that would result from disclosing the
scope of an investigation, and refused to allow FOIA to be used as a tool to force the government
to prematurely provide a roadmap of its investigative plans. See, e.g., Ctr. for Nat’l Sec. Studies,
331 F.3d at 928 (disclosure “would enable al Qaeda or other terrorist groups to map the course of
the investigation,” thus giving them “a composite picture”); Solar Sources, Inc. v. United States,
142 F.3d 1033, 1039 (7th Cir. 1998) (agreeing that disclosure could reveal “scope and nature” of

13

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 21 of 23

investigation); J.P. Stevens & Co. v. Perry, 710 F.2d 136, 143 (4th Cir. 1983) (disclosure would
“hinder [the agency’s] ability to shape and control investigations”); Suzhou YuandaEnter. Co. v.
U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 404 F. Supp. 2d 9, 14 (D.D.C. 2005) (accepting that disclosure of
evidence of criminal conduct “would interfere with an agency investigation [by] informing the
public of the evidence sought and scrutinized by this type of investigation”); Envtl. Prot. Servs.
v. EPA, 364 F. Supp. 2d 575, 588 (N.D.W. Va. 2005) (disclosure “would prematurely reveal the
EPA’s case”); Edmonds, 272 F. Supp. 2d at 55 (recognizing potential harms that would result if
disclosure “reveal[ed] the nature and scope of the investigations, investigative activities, the
cooperation of particular individuals, the identity of potential witnesses, and the investigative
steps taken to pursue interviews with individuals who can inform investigators”).

The agency has also determined that releasing certain evidentiary materials gathered
during the investigations would identify “the subjects of, and persons of investigative interest in,
the investigation.” Hardy Decl. ^ 46(c). As explained in the declaration, “[o]nce subjects and
persons of interest become aware of the FBI’s attention, they are able to take defensive actions to
conceal their activities, elude detection, mislead the investigation, and/or suppress or fabricate
evidence.” Id.

It is well-established that Exemption 7(A) provides for the non-disclosure of information
that would alert individuals that they are of interest to a pending investigation. See, e.g., Juarez,
518 F.3d at 58 (agreeing that release “would compromise the investigation as it could lead to
destruction of evidence”); Moorefield v. U.S. Secret Serv., 611 F.2d 1021, 1026 (5th Cir. 1980)
(agreeing that disclosure would enable targets “to elude the scrutiny of the [Secret] Service”);
Azmy v. Dep’t of Def., 562 F. Supp. 2d 590, 605 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (disclosure of “names of
individuals and organizations of ongoing law enforcement interest” could reasonably be

14

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 22 of 23

expected to interfere with investigation because “subjects of the Government’s interest would
likely attempt to conceal their activities”); Kay, 976 F. Supp. at 38-39 (finding that disclosure
would harm an investigation because it would provide the requester with insight into the focus of
the agency’s investigation and evidence, and permit him to intimidate witnesses and circumvent
the investigation).

Disclosure of the administrative materials the FBI has identified as responsive to
Manning’s FOIA request would have similar effects on the ongoing investigations. For example,
the reporting communications would reveal “the investigative steps taken to obtain witness and
source interviews; techniques and investigative methods used to compile and/or solicit
information from various sources; and any potential or perceived challenges in the
investigation.” Hardy Decl. ^ 47(a). Disclosure of miscellaneous administrative documents
would “provide information useful in identifying witnesses and sources, ascertaining
investigative strategies, and determining what evidence the FBI has collected,” thus undermining
its investigative efforts. Id. ^ 47(b). Finally, disclosure of administrative instructions would
reveal “specific investigative procedures employed in the investigation,” thus “permitting]
subjects or individuals of investigative interest to the FBI to anticipate law enforcement actions
and to alter, destroy, or fabricate evidence to their benefit, or to mislead the investigation.” Id.

^ 48. Revelation of any of these materials would interfere with the ongoing enforcement
proceedings.

The FBI has reviewed the responsive material, and determined that it is exempt in its
entirety under Exemption 7(A). As a result, there are no segregable, non-exempt portions that
may be released to Manning. Hardy Decl. ^ 49. Defendants’ assertion of Exemption 7(A)

15

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 23 of 23

should thus be upheld. See EPIC, 82 F. Supp. 3d at 322 (agreeing with the FBI’s determination
that there is no segregable material in documents involving the WikiLeaks investigation).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their

Motion for Summary Judgment and enter final judgment for them in this matter.

Dated: March 15, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

BENJAMIN C. MIZER

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

CHANNING D. PHILLIPS
United States Attorney

ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO
Deputy Branch Director
Federal Programs Branch

/s/Aimee W. Brown

AIMEE W. BROWN (IL Bar No. 6316922)
Trial Attorney

United States Department of Justice

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

Telephone: (202) 305-0845

Fax: (202) 616-8470

Email: aimee.w.brown@usdoj.gov

Counsel for Defendants

16

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

CHELSEA MANNING, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 15-CV-01654-APM

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al, )

)

Defendants. )

___________________________________________)

DECLARATION OF DAVID M. HARDY

I, David M. Hardy, declare as follows:

(1) I am the Section Chief of the Record/Information Dissemination Section
(“RIDS”), Records Management Division (“RMD”), in Winchester, Virginia. I have held this
position since August 1, 2002. Prior to my joining the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”),
from May 1, 2001 to July 31, 2002,1 was the Assistant Judge Advocate General of the Navy for
Civil Law. In that capacity, I had direct oversight of Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”)
policy, procedures, appeals, and litigation for the Navy. From October 1, 1980 to April 30,

2001,1 served as a Navy Judge Advocate at various commands and routinely worked with FOIA
matters. I am also an attorney who has been licensed to practice law in the State of Texas since
1980.

(2) In my official capacity as Section Chief of RIDS, I supervise approximately 233
employees who staff a total of ten (10) Federal Bureau of Investigation Headquarters (“FBIHQ”)
units and two (2) field operational service center units whose collective mission is to effectively
plan, develop, direct, and manage responses to requests for access to FBI records and

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 26

information pursuant to the FOIA as amended by the OPEN Government Act of 2007 and the
OPEN FOIA Act of 2009; the Privacy Act of 1974; Executive Order 13,526; Presidential,
Attorney General, and FBI policies and procedures; judicial decisions; and Presidential and
Congressional directives. My responsibilities also include the review of FBI information for
classification purposes as mandated by Executive Order 13,526,' and the preparation of
declarations in support of Exemption 1 claims asserted under the FOIA. I have been designated
by the Attorney General of the United States as an original classification authority and a
declassification authority pursuant to Executive Order 13,526 §§ 1.3 and 3.1. The statements
contained in this declaration are based upon my personal knowledge, upon information provided
to me in my official capacity, and upon conclusions and determinations reached and made in
accordance therewith.

(3) Due to the nature of my official duties, I am familiar with the procedures followed
by the FBI in responding to requests for information pursuant to the provisions of the FOIA,

5 U.S.C. § 552 and the Privacy Act (“PA”) of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Specifically, I am aware of
the FBI’s response to the FOIPA request of plaintiff, Chelsea E. Manning, seeking access to
certain FBI records relating to the “investigation conducted by the Washington Field Office of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Virginia
into the alleged disclosures of classified and sensitive but unclassified information by Private
First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning” and relating to the investigation “into alleged civilian co-
conspirators of the disclosures of information by Manning.” 1 2

(4) The FBI submits this declaration in support of its motion for summary judgment.
The Court granted the parties’ proposal to bifurcated summary judgment proceedings, allowing

1 75 Fed. Reg. 707 (2010).

2 Plaintiff has legally changed her name from Bradley Edward Manning to Chelsea Elizabeth Manning.

2

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 3 of 26

the FBI to litigate first the applicability of Exemption 7(A) only, while preserving any additional
underlying exemptions that may apply. See Minute Order (Dec. 15, 2015); see also ECF No. 11,
Joint Status Report and Proposed Schedule. In accordance with Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820
(D.C. Cir. 1973), this declaration provides the Court and plaintiff with an explanation of the
FBI’s recordkeeping system, the procedures used to search for records responsive to plaintiffs
request, and provides justification for the FBI's withholding of information pursuant to Privacy
Act Exemption 0(2), 5 U.S.C. § 552aG)(2) and FOIA Exemption 7(A). 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A).
In the event Exemption 7(A) expires during the pendency of this FOIA litigation, or if the Court
denies the FBI’s motion for summary judgment based on Exemption 7(A), the FBI preserves the
right to, and will, assert additional underlying FOIA exemptions that may apply.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF PLAINTIFF’S FOIPA REQUEST

(5) A chronology and description of pertinent correspondence concerning plaintiffs
FOIA request is set forth below. Copies of the relevant correspondence are attached hereto as
Exhibits A-N.

(6) By letter dated February 20, 2014, plaintiff submitted a FOIPA request seeking
access to “documents, papers, working papers, reports, letters, and memoranda from the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice,” and specifically:

• A. “Documents, papers, reports, letters, memoranda, films, electronic data,
photographs, audio and video recordings of or relating to investigation conducted
by the Washington Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Virginia into the alleged
disclosures of classified and sensitive but unclassified information by Private First
Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning beginning in late 2010 and continuing until an
unknown date, but as late as mid-2012.”

• B. “Any other documents, papers, reports, letters, memoranda, films, electronic
data, photographs, audio and video recordings of or relating to the investigation
conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office

3

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 4 of 26

of the Eastern District of Virginia into alleged civilian co-conspirators of the
disclosures of information by Manning.”

Plaintiff acknowledged a willingness to pay for fees for more than (2) hours of search effort and
for duplication charges in excess of one hundred (100) pages, and set no monetary limits on her
willingness to pay fees associated with the processing of her request. Finally, plaintiff sought
expedited processing of her request arguing an “urgency to inform the public about an actual or
alleged government activity,” and a “matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in
which there exist possible questions about the governments integrity which affect public
confidence.” (See Exhibit A.)

(7) By letter dated March 7, 2014, the FBI acknowledged receipt of plaintiffs FOIPA
request, assigning it FOIPA number 1255610-000. The FBI advised plaintiff her FOIPA request
did not contain sufficient information to conduct an accurate search of the FBI’s Central Records
System ("CRS”) and enclosed a Certification of Identity form for plaintiff to fill out and sign
under perjury statement attesting to her identity. The FBI advised plaintiff that failure to return
the completed form within thirty (30) days from the date of the letter would result in her request
being closed. Finally, the FBI notified plaintiff that she could appeal this determination to the
Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy (“OIP”) within sixty (60) days from the
date of the letter. (See Exhibit B.)

(8) By letter dated March 18, 2014, plaintiff perfected her FOIPA request by
returning the signed Certificate of Identity form with the requested additional personal identifiers
in order for the FBI to conduct an accurate search. The plaintiff made a few modifications to her
February 20, 2014, FOIPA request. Specifically, plaintiff requested:

• A. “Documents, papers, reports, letters, memoranda, films, electronic data,
photographs, audio and video recordings of or relating to the investigation
conducted by the Washington Field Office (WFO), the Department of Justice

4

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 5 of 26

Counterepionage [sic] Section (CES), the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern
District of Virginia (E.D.Va.) into the alleged disclosures of classified and
sensitive by [sic] unclassified information by then-Private First Class (PFC)
Bradley Edward Manning (a.k.a. Chelsea Elizabeth Manning).”

• B. “Any other documents, papers, reports, letters, memoranda, films, electronic
data, photographs, audio and video recordings of or relating to the investigation
conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies into
suspected or alleged civilian co-conspirators of the disclosures alleged to have
been conducted by Manning.”

Plaintiff specified that she was seeking any responsive records from “May 2010 to [the] present”
and provided “Case No. 10-GJ-3793” as additional information she thought would assist the FBI
in locating responsive records. She also renewed her request for expedited processing of her
request. (See Exhibit C.)

(9) By letter dated March 21, 2014, the FBI acknowledged receipt of plaintiffs now
perfected FOIPA request. The FBI advised her that it was searching its CRS for potentially
responsive records and that she could check for the future status of her request at
www.fbi.gov/foia. (See Exhibit D.)

(10) By letter dated April 3, 2014, the FBI denied plaintiffs request for expedited
processing. The FBI concluded that the topic of her request was not a matter “in which there
exist possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public confidence.”
Finally, the FBI advised plaintiff that she could appeal this determination to OIP within sixty
(60) days from the date of the letter. (See Exhibit E.)

(11) By letter dated April 8, 2014, the FBI advised plaintiff the information she
requested was located in a pending investigative file exempt from disclosure pursuant to FOIA
Exemption 7(A), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A), which exempts from disclosure “records or
information compiled for law enforcement purposes [when disclosure] could reasonably be
expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings... .” The FBI advised plaintiff that she could

5

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 6 of 26

appeal this determination to OIP within sixty (60) days from the date of the letter. (See Exhibit
F.)

(12) By letter dated April 11, 2014, plaintiff appealed the FBI’s denial of her request
for expedited processing to OIP. (See Exhibit G.)

(13) By letter dated April 17, 2014, plaintiff appealed the FBI’s denial of her request
pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7(A) to OIP. In her appeal, she also challenged the FBI’s failure to
address her request for disclosure of the requested records under the Privacy Act. (.See Exhibit
H.)

(14) OIP acknowledged receipt of plaintiffs appeal concerning the FBI’s denial of
expedited processing by letter dated April 29, 2014, and advised plaintiff it was closing the
appeal because the FBI had already responded to her FOIPA request, rendering the expedited
processing request moot. (,See Exhibit I.)

(15) By letter dated May 7, 2014, OIP acknowledged receipt of plaintiffs April 17,
2014 appeal of the FBI’s denial of her request pursuant to Exemption 7(A) and assigned it appeal
number AP-2014-02758. OIP advised her that it received her appeal on April 30, 2014, and also
that it would notify her of its decision as soon as possible. (See Exhibit J.)

(16) By letter dated August 7, 2014, OIP affirmed the FBI’s action on plaintiffs
request. OIP determined the records responsive to plaintiffs request were exempt from the
access provision of the Privacy Act, citing 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2) and see also 28 C.F.R. § 16.96
(2013). OIP further determined that the FBI properly denied her request pursuant to Exemption
7(A). OIP advised plaintiff she could file a lawsuit in federal district court if she was dissatisfied
with OIP’s action. In addition, OIP informed plaintiff that as a non-exclusive alternative to
litigation, she could seek the mediation services of the Office of Government Information

6

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 7 of 26

Services (“OGIS”), National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”), in order to
potentially resolve her dispute with the FBI. (See Exhibit K.)

(17) By letter dated January 5, 2015, plaintiff asked for assistance from OGIS in her
FOIPA dispute with the FBI. (See Exhibit L.)

(18) By letter dated January 16, 2015, OGIS acknowledged receipt of plaintiffs
mediation services request, assigning it Case Number 201500307. (See Exhibit M.)

(19) By letter dated February 24, 2015, OGIS responded to plaintiffs mediation
assistance request. OGIS provided additional explanation about the application of Exemption
7(A) generally and suggested that since Exemption 7(A) is temporal in nature, that plaintiff may
wish to make a new request for her records at some point in the future to see if Exemption 7(A)’s
protections have been lifted. (See Exhibit N.)

(20) Plaintiff filed this instant lawsuit on October 8, 2015. See ECF No. 1, Complaint.

THE FBI’S CENTRAL RECORDS SYSTEM

(21) The Central Records System (“CRS”) is an extensive system of records consisting
of applicant, investigative, intelligence, personnel, administrative, and general files compiled and
maintained by the FBI in the course of fulfilling its integrated missions and functions as a law
enforcement, counterterrorism, and intelligence agency to include performance of administrative
and personnel functions. The CRS spans the entire FBI organization and encompasses the
records of FBI Headquarters (“FBIHQ”), FBI Field Offices, and FBI Legal Attaché Offices
(“Légats”) worldwide.

(22) The CRS consists of a numerical sequence of files, called FBI “classifications,”
which are organized according to designated subject categories. The broad array of CRS file
classification categories include types of criminal conduct and investigations conducted by the

7

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 8 of 26

FBI, as well as categorical subjects pertaining to counterterrorism, intelligence,
counterintelligence, personnel, and administrative matters. For identification and retrieval
purposes across the FBI, when a case file is opened, it is assigned a Universal Case File Number
(“UCFN”) consisting of three sequential components: (a) the CRS file classification number, (b)
the abbreviation of the FBI Office of Origin (“00”) initiating the file, and (c) the assigned
individual case file number for that particular subject matter.3 Within each case file, pertinent
documents of interest are “serialized,” or assigned a document number in the order which the
document is added to the file, typically in chronological order.

THE CRS GENERAL INDICES AND INDEXING

(23) The general indices to the CRS are the index or “key” to locating records within
the enormous amount of information contained in the CRS. The CRS is indexed in a manner
which meets the FBI’s investigative needs and priorities, and allows FBI personnel to reasonably
and adequately locate pertinent files in the performance of their law enforcement duties. The
general indices are arranged in alphabetical order and comprise an index on a variety of subject
matters to include individuals, organizations, events, or other subjects of investigative interest
that are indexed for future retrieval. The entries in the general indices fall into two category
types:

a. Main entry. This entry pertains to records indexed to the main subject(s) of a
file, known as “main file” records. The “main” entry carries the name of an
individual, organization, or other subject matter that is the designated subject of
the file.

3 For example, in a fictitious file number of “11Z-HQ-56789;” the “11Z” component indicates the file
classification, “HQ” indicates that FBI Headquarters is the FBI OO of the file, and “56789”is the assigned case
specific file number.

8

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 9 of 26

b. Reference entry. This entry, or a “cross-reference,” pertains to records that
merely mention or reference an individual, organization, or other subject matter
that is contained in a “main” file record about a different subject matter.

(24) FBI Special Agents (“SA”) and/or designated support personnel may index
information in the CRS by individual (persons), by organization (organizational entities, places,
and things), and by event (e.g., a terrorist attack or bank robbery). Indexing information in the
CRS is based on operational necessity, and the FBI only indexes that information considered
relevant and necessary for future retrieval. Accordingly, the FBI does not index every individual
name or other subject matter in the general indices.

AUTOMATED CASE SUPPORT

(25) Automated Case Support (“ACS”) is an electronic, integrated case management
system that became effective for FBIHQ and all FBI Field Offices and Legats on October 1,

1995. As part of the ACS implementation process, over 105 million CRS records were
converted from automated systems previously utilized by the FBI into a single, consolidated case
management system accessible by all FBI offices. ACS has an operational purpose and design to
enable the FBI to locate, retrieve, and maintain information in its files in the performance of its
myriad missions and functions.4

(26) The Universal Index (“UNI”) is the automated index of the CRS and provides all
offices of the FBI a centralized, electronic means of indexing pertinent investigative information
to FBI files for future retrieval via index searching. Individual names may be recorded with
applicable identifying information such as date of birth, race, sex,' locality, Social Security
Number, address, and/or date of an event. Moreover, ACS implementation built upon and

4 ACS and the next generation Sentinel system are relied upon by the FBI daily to fulfill essential
functions such as conducting criminal, counterterrorism, and national security investigations; background
investigations; citizenship and employment queries, and security screening, to include Presidential protection.

9

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 10 of 26

incorporated prior automated FBI indices; therefore, a search employing the UNI application of
ACS encompasses data that was already indexed into the prior automated systems superseded by
ACS. As such, a UNI index search in ACS is capable of locating FBI records created before its
1995 FBI-wide implementation to the present day in both paper and electronic format.5
Currently, UNI consists of approximately 112.5 million searchable records and is updated daily
with newly indexed material.

ACS and SENTINEL

(27) Sentinel is the FBI’s next generation case management system that became
effective FBI-wide on July 1, 2012. Sentinel provides a web-based interface to FBI users, and it
includes the same automated applications that are utilized in ACS. After July 1, 2012, all FBI
generated records are created electronically in case files via Sentinel; however, Sentinel did not
replace ACS and its relevance as an important FBI search mechanism. Just as pertinent
information was indexed into UNI for records generated in ACS before July 1, 2012, when a
record is generated in Sentinel, information is indexed for future retrieval. Moreover, there is an
index data sharing nexus between the Sentinel and ACS systems whereby components of
information indexed into Sentinel are also replicated or “backfilled” into ACS. In sum, the
Sentinel case management system builds on ACS and shares its operational purpose; Sentinel
provides another portal to locate information within the vast CRS for FBI records generated on
or after July 1,2012.

5 Older CRS records that were not indexed into UNI as a result of the 1995 ACS consolidation remain
searchable by manual review of index cards, known as the “manual indices.” A search of the manual indices is
triggered for requests on individuals if the person was bom on or before January 1, 1958; and for requests seeking
information about organizations or events on or before January 1, 1973. In this case, plaintiff was bom in 1987, so
any potentially responsive records would be captured through a UNI search.

10

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 11 of 26

SEARCH FOR RECORDS RESPONSIVE TO PLAINTIFF’S FOIPA REQUEST

(28) Main and Cross-Reference Files. At the time of plaintiffs perfected March 18,
2014 FOIPA request, it was RIDS policy to search for and identify only “main” files responsive
to most FOIPA requests at the administrative stage. Therefore, during the litigation stage RIDS
conducted an additional search of the CRS to locate any potential “cross reference” material
responsive to plaintiffs request.6

(29) Index Searching. To locate CRS information, RIDS employs an index search
methodology. Index searches of the CRS are reasonably expected to locate responsive material
within the vast CRS since the FBI indexes pertinent information into the CRS to facilitate
retrieval based on operational necessity. Given the broad range of indexed material in terms of
both time frame and subject matter that it can locate in FBI files, the automated UNI application
of ACS is the mechanism RIDS employs to conduct CRS index searches. Since plaintiffs
request seeks records that may have been generated on or after July 1, 2012, an overlapping
search of ACS via the UNI application and a Sentinel index search are performed.

(30) CRS Searches and Results. In response to plaintiffs perfected March 18, 2014
FOIPA request, RIDS conducted a CRS index search on April 8, 2014, for responsive main files
records employing the UNI application of ACS and a Sentinel index search by utilizing a six-
way phonetic breakdown of the subject’s names, including any variations of the first, or last, e.g.
“Manning, Bradley, Edward,” “Manning, Bradley, E,” “Manning, B, E,” “Manning, Bradley,”
“Manning, B,” “Manning, Edward,” “Manning, E,” “Manning, Chelsea, Elizabeth,” “Manning,
Chelsea, E,” “Manning, C, E,” “Manning, Chelsea,” “Manning, C,” and “Manning, Elizabeth.”
The FBI also used the subject’s date of birth, place of birth, plaintiffs description of the relevant

6 Reference entries, or cross-references, are mere mentions of a subject, individual, or organization in files
that are indexed to other subjects, individuals, organization, events, or activities.

11

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 12 of 26

investigation (including dates), and case number she provided (10-GJ-3793) to facilitate the
identification of responsive records. As a result of these search efforts, potentially responsive
investigative records were located. The FBI concluded, based on review of the investigative case
file containing potentially responsive records and communications with the Special Agent
(“SA”) in charge of the investigation, that the records were part of and related to pending
enforcement proceedings.

(31) The FBI subsequently conducted an additional search for any cross references
responsive to plaintiffs request. The FBI conducted (a) a search of the CRS index employing
the UNI application of ACS and (b) a Sentinel index search, both using the same search terms it
used in its original search as described in paragraph 30.7 This additional search of the CRS
confirmed the results of the original search for main files and also identified additional
responsive cross-references. Review of these cross-references revealed that they also are part of
and related to pending enforcement proceedings.

(32) The FBI concluded that a separate search for records responsive to the second part
of plaintiffs request (seeking records about the FBI’s investigation of other individuals involved
in the unauthorized disclosure of classified materials that were published on the WikiLeaks
website) was unnecessary. The investigative files containing records responsive to the first part
of plaintiffs request (for records about herself) were the same files located and processed by the
FBI in response to the FOIA request at issue in EPIC v. DOJ, another lawsuit involving records
related to the FBI’s investigation of the unauthorized disclosure of classified information that
was published on the WikiLeaks website. See 82 F. Supp. 3d 307 (D.D.C. 2015). As a result of
the EPIC case, the FBI was aware that the records responsive to both parts of plaintiffs request

7 The search cut-off date for the cross-reference searches was determined to be April 8, 2014, the day the
FBI conducted its original search for responsive records. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.4(a).

12

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 13 of 26

were maintained in the same files, which were identified during the FBI’s search for records
responsive to plaintiffs request about herself. This conclusion was confirmed upon the review
of the files located in the FBI’s search for records about plaintiff. Accordingly, the FBI
concluded that a separate search for records responsive to the second part of plaintiffs request
was unnecessary.

(33) Scope of Search. RIDS conducted a search reasonably calculated to locate
records responsive to plaintiffs request. First, given its comprehensive nature and scope, the
CRS is the principal records system searched by RIDS to locate information responsive to most
FOIPA requests, because the CRS is where the FBI indexes information about individuals,
organizations, events, and other subjects of investigative interest for future retrieval. See infra U
21. Second, given plaintiffs request seeking investigative records pertaining to herself such
information would reasonably be expected to be located in the CRS via the index search
methodology. Indeed, this search methodology led to the specific investigation described by
plaintiff in her request - i.e., the FBI’s investigation related to plaintiffs unauthorized
disclosures of classified information that was published on the WikiLeaks website.8

(34) The records responsive to plaintiffs request are part of the FBI’s active, ongoing
criminal investigation into the above-described disclosure of classified information. The FBI has
determined that these records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7(A)
because disclosure would adversely affect the FBI’s pending investigation and any resulting
prosecutions. Further, the FBI has determined that these records may also be exempt, in whole
or in part, under one or more other FOIA exemptions. Finally, the FBI concluded, upon review,

8 This is a high-profile case and has been the subject of other FOIA requests and one lawsuit (EPIC v.

DOJ, 12-cv-0127 (D.D.C.)), so even before conducting the searches described in this declaration, RIDS was aware
of the investigation about which plaintiff requested records.

13

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 14 of 26

that no public source material is available for release because any such disclosure at this point
would adversely affect the FBI’s pending investigation.9

JUSTIFICATION FOR NON-DISCLOSURE UNDER THE PRIVACY ACT

(35) When an individual requests records about himself/herself from the FBI, RIDS
first analyzes the request under the Privacy Act, which generally provides individuals a right of
access to records about them maintained in government files, unless the records are part of a
system of records exempted from individual access. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d). One such
exemption is Privacy Act Exemption (j)(2), which exempts from mandatory disclosure systems
of records “maintained by an agency or component thereof which performs as its principal
function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws, including police efforts to
prevent, control, or reduce crime or to apprehend criminals ... .” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2).

(36) Under the Privacy Act, agencies may promulgate rules to exempt systems of
records from various provisions of the Act, to include individual requests for access or
amendment. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d), (j) and (k). Pursuant to this authority, the U.S. Department
of Justice (“DOJ”) promulgated regulations exempting certain systems of records from
individual access, inter alia. The FBI is a criminal and regulatory enforcement agency within
DOJ responsible for enforcing federal laws, and DOJ has exempted FBI law enforcement
investigative records maintained in the CRS from the Privacy Act’s access provision pursuant to
(j)(2). See 28 C.F.R. § 16.96(a)(1).10 Consequently, plaintiff has no individual right of access to

9 While the FBI has acknowledged that it is investigating whether anyone else was involved with plaintiff
in the unauthorized disclosures of classified information made to WikiLeaks, the FBI has not and is not confirming
or denying whether it is investigating any particular person, pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(A), and 7(C).

10 Privacy Act System of Records FBI-002, 63 FR 8671 (1998) (last publication of complete notice).

14

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 15 of 26

investigative records about herself under the Privacy Act. Having reached this conclusion, the
FBI then considered whether she could access those records under the FOIA.

JUSTIFICATION FOR NON-DISCLOSURE UNDER THE FOIA

(37) As previously noted, the FBI concluded that records responsive to plaintiffs
request are part of and related to the FBI’s active, ongoing investigation into the unauthorized
disclosure of classified information that subsequently was published on the WikiLeaks website.
Accordingly, it withheld these records pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7(A). The FBI’s basis for
asserting Exemption 7(A) is detailed below.11

Exemption 7 Threshold

(38) FOIA Exemption 7 exempts from mandatory disclosure records or information
compiled for law enforcement purposes when disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause
one of the harms enumerated in the subparts of the exemption. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7). Here,
the FBI is relying on Exemption 7 to prevent interference with ongoing law enforcement
investigations and proceedings.

(39) In order to rely on Exemption 7, an agency first must demonstrate that the records
or information it seeks to withhold were compiled for law enforcement purposes. Law
enforcement agencies such as the FBI must demonstrate that the records at issue are related to
the enforcement of federal laws and that the enforcement activity is within its law enforcement
duties. Here, responsive records are contained in files pertaining to the FBI’s investigation of the
unauthorized disclosure of classified information that was published on the WikiLeaks website.
The FBI’s Washington Field Office opened a criminal/national security investigation into these

11 The same investigative records at issue here were also at issue in EPIC v. DOJ, 12-cv-0127 (D.D.C.).
This Court upheld the FBI’s protection of the records pursuant to Exemption 7(A). See EPIC v. DOJ, 2015 WL
971756 (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 2015) (Memorandum Opinion granting DOJ’s motion for summary judgment).

15

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 16 of 26

allegations in 2010 and maintains them pursuant to applicable Attorney General Guidelines. The
investigations are ongoing and clearly are within the law enforcement duties of the FBI to detect
and undertake investigations into possible violations of Federal criminal laws. See 28 U.S.C. §
533. Thus, all of the records responsive to plaintiffs FOIPA request were compiled for law
enforcement purposes and readily meet the threshold for applying FOIA Exemption 7.12

Exemption 7(A) - Pending Enforcement Proceedings

(40) FOIA Exemption 7(A) exempts from disclosure:

records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but
only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement
records or information ... could reasonably be expected to interfere
with enforcement proceedings.

5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A).

(41) Application of this exemption requires: the existence of law enforcement records;
a pending or prospective law enforcement proceeding; and a determination that release of the
information could reasonably be expected to interfere with the enforcement proceeding. The FBI
has withheld all responsive records pursuant to Exemption 7(A). As established above, these
records are law enforcement records that are part of and related to a pending FBI investigation.
The FBI has determined that disclosure of any responsive records in the midst of this pending
investigation, and prior to any prosecutions that may result from the investigation, is reasonably
expected to interfere with the investigation as well as any resulting prosecutions. As such, the
release of these records would interfere with pending and prospective enforcement proceedings.

12 The FBI’s files contain responsive records originating from other government agencies (“OGAs”).
Because the FBI is withholding all records pursuant to Exemption 7(A), it has not referred these records to their
originating OGAs for review and application of other exemptions. The FBI believes these records are also subject to
one or more of the other exemptions whose applicability will be preserved for future assertion. If the FBI’s
Exemption 7(A) withholdings are not upheld, it will refer the records to the originating OGAs for review and a
direct response to plaintiff.

16

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 17 of 26

Types of Documents Protected By Exemption 7(A)

(42) Providing a document-by-document description or listing of the records
potentially responsive to plaintiffs request at this juncture would undermine the very interests
that the FBI seeks to protect under Exemption 7(A). In order to protect these interests, the FBI
instead has described the types of potentially responsive records that are being withheld in full
pursuant to Exemption 7(A).13 The FBI then grouped the document types into functional
categories and described the potential harm associated with disclosing each category of
information.

(43) The pending investigative files contain the following types of documents:

(a) Electronic Communication (“EC”): The purpose of an EC is to
communicate within the FBI in a consistent format that can be uploaded by the originating
Division or office, transmitted, and downloaded by recipient Divisions or offices within the
FBI’s internal computer network.

(b) FBI Letter: This is a letter or formal correspondence in a format used by
the FBI to communicate with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, other
government agencies (“OGAs”), other law enforcement agencies (including federal, state, local,
and tribal), commercial businesses, and private citizens. Its format is identical to the business
letters utilized by commercial agencies except that it contains the FBI Seal at the top of the first
page, as well as specific identifying information regarding the originating office within the FBI
that sent the letter (e.g., Omaha Division or FBIHQ).

13 Similarly, disclosing the total volume of responsive information protected by Exemption 7(A) and/or
another exemption would reveal information about the nature, scope, focus, and conduct of active, on-going
investigations, and thus cannot be publicly disclosed without undermining the law enforcement interests the FBI is
seeking to protect by application of Exemption 7(A) in this case.

17

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 18 of 26

(c) FD-302 (Interview Form):14 This is an internal FBI form on which the
results of FBI interviews of persons are recorded. Such interview information may later be used
as evidence at criminal trials. These interview forms are often incorporated into FBI
Investigative Reports. The contents of these forms may also be incorporated into ECs for
purposes of setting/covering leads.

(d) FD-542 (Investigative Accomplishment Form): This is an internal FBI
form on which employees claim accomplishments and investigative methods used in
investigations.

(e) FD-794 (Payment Request): This is an internal FBI form used by
employees to request payment for reimbursement of expenses incurred during an investigation.

(f) Memorandum: This is ordinarily a communication from the FBI to the
Attorney General and/or other DOJ component officials; from one employee/official to another
at FBIHQ; or from one employee/official to another within an FBI field division. It serves to
assist in the overall supervision of a case by summarizing pertinent details of an investigation.

(g) E-mails: These are electronic messages exchanged between and among
FBI Special Agents, other FBI employees, and personnel from OGAs, concerning these
investigations.

(h) Letterhead Memorandum t“LHM”T This memorandum is an interim
summary that reports information, usually derived from FD-302s, concerning the subject of an
investigation. It is designed to alert other field offices and/or FBIHQ about pertinent
developments in an investigation. Usually, an LHM is attached to a cover sheet, which is
typically an FBI letter. The LHM can also be detached from the cover sheet and disseminated to
other Government agencies as a “Law Enforcement Sensitive/For Official Use Only” document.

14 All forms with the designation “FD-” are forms created and utilized internally by the FBI.

18

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 19 of 26

(i) FBI Records Checks: These are computerized print-outs of the results of
checks of databases concerning FBI records, local law enforcement records, and/or business
records. The information from these records checks is often incorporated into Investigative
Reports and ECs for lead purposes.

(j) FBI Investigative Reports: These are summaries of investigations as of
the date of the report. The purpose of these documents is to advise FBIHQ and FBI field offices
of the investigative information that has been obtained concerning a particular investigation.

(k) FBI Computer Printouts: These are printouts from internal FBI computer
systems that describe information concerning FBI investigations. The information included on
the documents may include file numbers, names, and addresses of subjects and suspects, key
dates and places of crimes, names of Special Agents (“SAs”) assigned to investigations, and
other similar information.

(l) FBI Investigative Inserts: Internal FBI forms used to record investigative
actions such as an FBI records check of a database of law enforcement records. These inserts are
often incorporated into FBI Investigative Reports.

(m) Other Investigative Documents: This category consists of various types of
documents reflecting information and evidence gathered during an FBI investigation, the sources
from/by which such information and evidence was gathered, methods used to obtain the
information and evidence, and methods used to analyze the information and evidence. To
describe the documents in this category any more specifically would reveal the scope of the
FBI’s investigations, as well as the sources and methods being utilized by the FBI.

(n) Miscellaneous Administrative Documents: The FBI uses various types of
forms throughout a criminal investigation, including storage envelopes, bulky exhibit cover

19

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 20 of 26

sheets, transmittal forms (i.e., facsimile cover sheets), letters, and routing slips. Also included
are forms that are placed in a file to document when a serial has been removed and placed
elsewhere. For example, an FD-5A (Automated Serial Permanent Charge-Out) is placed in a file
to show that a serial was transferred to a sub-file. Other documents in this category include
notes, memoranda, letters, telegrams, and other attachments of an administrative nature which do
not fall into an official government format.

Reasonable Expectation of Interference

(44) In processing requests under the FOIA, the FBI has established procedures to
implement the FOIA as efficiently as possible. When the FBI receives a request for records
about a pending investigation, it commonly asserts FOIA Exemption 7(A) to protect the pending
investigation and/or any related prospective investigations and prosecutions. Nonetheless, the
FBI reviews the records to identify and release any reasonably segregable information contained
in the responsive file(s) that would not jeopardize ongoing or future enforcement proceedings.

As discussed below, the FBI’s review of the responsive records in the pending cases reveals no
materials that can be released without jeopardizing current or prospective investigative and/or
prosecutive efforts. In addition, a review of the responsive records determined there is no public
source material available for release that would not adversely affect pending or prospective
enforcement proceedings if disclosed.

(45) Here, RIDS has reviewed and categorized the types of documents described above
into two categories: Evidentiary/Investigative Materials and Administrative Materials. Each

20

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 21 of 26

responsive record, and the information contained in each record, falls into one or both of these
categories.15

(46) Evidentiary/Investigative Materials. This category includes copies of records or
evidence, analyses of evidence, and derivative communications discussing or incorporating
evidence. A derivative communication describes, verbatim or in summary, the contents of the
original record, how it was obtained, and how it relates to the investigation. Other derivative
communications report this information to other FBI field offices, law enforcement agencies, or
Federal agencies, either to advise them about the progress of the investigation, or to elicit their
assistance in handling investigative leads. The following subparagraphs describe the types of
evidentiary materials in the responsive records and the anticipated harm that could reasonably
result from the release of the materials.

(a) Confidential Source Statements: Statements made to the FBI by sources
based on express or implied assurances of confidentiality are one of the principal tools used in
proving facts that form the basis for a prosecution. These statements contain information
obtained from individuals or organizations with knowledge of potential criminal activities related
to the unauthorized disclosure of classified information being investigated by the FBI. If the FBI
were to release this information, the sources that have chosen to cooperate with law enforcement
could be subjected to retaliation, intimidation, or physical or mental harm. This would have a
chilling effect on the FBI’s investigative efforts here and any resulting prosecutions, inasmuch as
potential witnesses and/or sources might fear exposure and reprisals from the subjects of these
investigations and/or from other individuals. Implicit in conducting interviews in investigations
of this nature is the notion that a source’s identity and the information he/she/it provided will be

15 A single record - e.g., an FBI Investigative Report - may serve several purposes and may contain
multiple categories of information, such as witness statements, administrative directions, and/or evidentiary
materials; such a report could be included in both categories, as could the information contained in the report.

21

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 22 of 26

afforded confidentiality. The FBI goes to great lengths to protect and maintain sources’
confidentiality because it is an integral part of successful investigations and prosecutions. The
release of source statements in the responsive records at issue here would disrupt and harm
ongoing investigative actions and any resulting prosecutions.

(b) Exchange of Information Between FBI and Other Law Enforcement
Agencies: Release of information exchanged between the FBI and its law enforcement partners
would disclose evidence, investigative information, and criminal intelligence developed by
agencies that have cooperated with and provided information to the FBI, and that are still doing
so, in the pending investigation. Inherent in this cooperative effort is the mutual understanding
that information provided to the FBI by these agencies will not be prematurely released. This
information was gathered, and is continuing to be gathered, to help identify subjects, suspects,
and/or other individuals of potential investigative interest; to identify and assist in locating
witnesses and/or confidential sources; and to further the progress of the investigation. Release of
this information at this point in the investigative process would reveal the scope and focus of the
investigation; identify and tip off individuals of interest to law enforcement; and provide
suspects or targets the opportunity to destroy evidence and alter their behavior to avoid detection.
All of this clearly would negatively impact the pending investigation.

(c) Documentary Evidence/Information Concerning Documentary Evidence:
Disclosure of documentary evidence being gathered in the ongoing investigation, or information
discussing, describing, or analyzing the documentary evidence, would undermine the
investigation and any resulting prosecutions by prematurely revealing the scope and focus of the
investigation, and also the subjects of, and persons of investigative interest in, the investigation.
Once subjects and persons of interest become aware of the FBI’s attention, they are able to take

22

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 23 of 26

defensive actions to conceal their activities, elude detection, mislead the investigation, and/or
suppress or fabricate evidence. Additionally, disclosure of documentary evidence and/or
information concerning documentary evidence also could reasonably lead to the identification of
the sources of the evidence. This too would adversely impact the ongoing investigation and any
resulting prosecutions because it could result in possible intimidation of or harm to those
witnesses and sources. This evidence, and information about this evidence in other documents,
is pertinent and integral to the FBI’s ongoing investigation and future prosecutions, and thus its
disclosure while the investigation is pending would adverse affect this and any resulting
prosecutions.

(47) Administrative Materials. Materials that fall within this category include items
such as case captions, serial numbers, identities of FBI field offices, dates of investigations, and
detailed instructions designed to ensure that investigative procedures are conducted within the
appropriate FBI and DOJ guidelines. The following subparagraphs describe the types of
administrative materials contained in the responsive records and the anticipated harms that could
reasonably result from the disclosure of such materials in the midst of the FBI’s ongoing
investigation and in any resulting prosecutions. In many instances, administrative information is
contained at the beginning or end of correspondence or documents that fall within the
Investigative/Evidentiary Material category, such that release of the administrative information
would also reveal the investigative interests of the FBI and could enable suspects, targets, and
individuals of interest to the FBI to discern a “road map” of the investigations.

(a) Reporting Communications: These communications permit an agency to
monitor the progress of the investigation and facilitate its conduct. They can reveal or confirm
the cooperation of other Government agencies in the investigation; are replete with detailed

23

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 24 of 26

information about the FBI’s investigative activities and about potential witnesses/sources to be
interviewed; and contain background information about third party individuals, the origins of
information connecting them to the investigations, and their connections to subjects and
individuals of investigative interest to the FBI. The release of this information would
prematurely reveal the nature and scope of this active and ongoing investigation by revealing:
the investigative steps taken to obtain witness and source interviews; techniques and
investigative methods used to compile and/or solicit information from various sources; and any
potential or perceived challenges in the investigation.

(b) Miscellaneous Administrative Documents: These materials include items
such as storage envelopes, transmittal forms, and standardized forms used for a variety of
particular purposes. These types of materials have been used throughout the investigation for
many routine purposes; however, the manner in which they have been used and organized in the
files in and of itself reveals information of investigative value, the premature disclosure of which
could undermine the pending investigation and any resulting prosecutions. An example is the
evidentiary envelope used to store records obtained from a source under an express or implied
assurance of confidentiality. While the envelope is not specific to these investigations,
handwritten notations on the envelope identify dates, places, and the identities of the sources
providing the information. In addition, the mere fact that an FBI Special Agent used an envelope
for the storage of records he/she has obtained from a source is revealing on its own. The
disclosure of these materials could harm the investigation by providing details that, when viewed
in conjunction with knowledge possessed by subjects or others knowledgeable about the
unauthorized disclosure of classified information being investigated, would provide information

24

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 25 of 26

useful in identifying witnesses and sources, ascertaining investigative strategies, and determining
what evidence the FBI has collected.

(48) Administrative Instructions: This type of information, whether it originates in
communications from the FBI or other government or law enforcement agencies, would disclose
specific investigative procedures employed in the investigation. Release of this information
would thus permit subjects or individuals of investigative interest to the FBI to anticipate law
enforcement actions and to alter, destroy, or fabricate evidence to their benefit, or to mislead the
investigation. Specific examples of these instructions include the setting out of investigative
guidelines and requests for specific investigative inquiries and affirmative tasking to various FBI
field offices or to other government or law enforcement agencies. These are commonly referred
to as “investigative leads” and are set forth in documents throughout the course of the
investigation.

CONCLUSION

(49) The FBI has performed a reasonable search for records responsive to plaintiffs
request, identified the specific investigation about which plaintiff requested records, and located
the records that plaintiff requested. The FBI first analyzed the request under the Privacy Act and
concluded that plaintiffs access to the records is exempted under Privacy Act Exemption (j)(2)
and DOJ’s regulation exempting the CRS from the Privacy Act’s access provisions. The FBI
then considered the request under the FOIA. The FBI carefully reviewed the responsive records;
determined that they are part of and related to a pending investigation and that disclosure at this
time could reasonably be expected to adversely affect the investigation and any resulting
prosecutions; and denied plaintiffs request for them pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7(A).16 The

16 Pursuant to the parties’ proposal to bifurcated summary judgment proceedings, which the Court granted,
the FBI initially is defending only the applicability of Exemption 7(A), but preserves the right to defend any

25

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-1 Filed 03/15/16 Page 26 of 26

FBI’s segregability review determined there is no reasonably segregable information, including
public source material, which can be released at this time without adversely affecting the
investigation and any resulting prosecutions.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746,1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct, and that Exhibits A through N attached hereto are true and correct copies.

Executed this J day of March, 2016.

Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Winchester, Virginia

additional underlying exemptions that may apply. See Minute Order (Dec. 15, 2015); see also ECF No. 11, Joint
Status Report and Proposed Schedule.

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-2 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

. )

CHELSEA MANNING )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-01654-APM

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

OF JUSTICE, ET AL )

)

Defendants )

_____________________________________)

Exhibit A

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-2 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 2

Chelsea E. Manning

89289

1300 North Warehouse Road

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-2304

2014.02.20

Federal Bureau of Investigation

935 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20620

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. § 552), the Privacy Act (PA)
(5 U.S.C. § 552a), and Part 16 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (32 C.F.R.
§§ 16.1 et seq.), I hereby request the following documents, papers, working papers, reports,
letters, and memoranda from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of
Justice.

a. Documents, papers, reports, letters, memoranda, films, electronic data, photographs,
audio and video recordings of or relating to investigation conducted by the Washington Field
Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern
District of Virginia into the alleged disclosures of classified and sensitive but unclassified
information by Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning beginning in late 2010 and
continuing until an unknown date, but as late as mid-2012.

b. Any other documents, papers, reports, letters, memoranda, films, electronic data,
photographs, audio and video recordings of or relating to the investigation conducted by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of
Virginia into alleged civilian co-conspirators of the disclosures of information by Manning.

Pursuant to 32 C.F.R. § 16.11,1 acknowledge a willingness to pay for fees for more than
two (2) hours of search effort, and for duplication charges in excess of one hundred (100)
pages. There is no monetary limit to my willingness to pay for fees. Though, I am not
waiving any exemptions provided by federal statute or regulation. Also pursuant to 32 C.F.R.
§ 16.5(d), I hereby request “expedited processing” of this request due to an “urgency to
inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity,” and a “matter of
widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the
government’s integrity which affect public confidence,” in accordance with 32 C.F.R. §
16.5(d)(l)(ii) and (d)(l)(iv).

Thank you,

CHELSEA E. MANNING

^ 0 MAR 20H

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-3 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

CHELSEA MANNING )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-01654-APM

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

OF JUSTICE, ET AL )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

Exhibit B

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-3 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 4

U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washington, D.C. 20535

March 7, 2014

MS. CHELSEA E. MANNING
89289

1300 NORTH WAREHOUSE ROAD
FORT LEAVENWORTH, KS 66027-2304

FOIPA Request No.: 1255610-000
Subject: MANNING, BRADLEY E.

Dear Ms. Manning:

This acknowledges receipt of your Freedom of Information/Privacy Act (FOIPA) request to the FBI. The
FOIPA number listed above has been assigned to your request. Your letter did not contain sufficient information to
conduct an accurate search of the Central Records System.

Full Name:_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Current Address: __________________________________________________________________________________________

Date of Birth:__________________________________________Place of Birth:____________________________________

Daytime Telephone Number:__________________________________________________________________________________

Please provide any additional Information that you think would assist the FBI with our search for records, such
as prior addresses, employments, aliases, approximate time frame for the Information sought.

Under penalty of perjury, I hereby declare that I am the person named above and I understand that any
falsification of this statement is punishable under the provisions of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by a fine of not more than
$10,000 or by imprisonment of not more than five years, or both; and that requesting or obtaining any record(s) under
false pretenses is punishable under the provisions of Title 5 U.S.C. § 552a (i)(3), as a misdemeanor and by a fine of not
more than $5,000. The signature must be legible.

Signature_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Date____________________________________________

You can fax your request to (540) 868-4997, or mail to 170 Marcel Drive, Winchester, VA 22602, to the Attn:
Initial Processing. If we do not receive a response from you within 30 days from the date of this letter, your request will
be closed. You must include the FOIPA request number with any communication regarding this matter.

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-3 Filed 03/15/16 Page 3 of 4

You may file an appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), U.S. Department of
Justice, 1425 New York Ave., NW, Suite 11050, Washington, D.C. 20530-000, .or you may submit an appeal through
OIP’s eFOIA portal at http://www.iustice.gov/oip/efoia-Portal.html. Your appeal must be received by OIP within sixty
(60) days from the date of this letter in order to be considered timely. The envelope and the letter should be clearly
marked “Freedom of Information Appeal.” Please cite the FOIPA Request Number in any correspondence to us for
proper identification of your request.

Enclosed for your information is a copy of the FBI Fact Sheet.

Sincerely,

David M. Hardy
Section Chief
Record/lnformation
Dissemination Section
Records Management Division

Enclosure

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-3 Filed 03/15/16 Page 4 of 4

FBI FACT SHEET

• The primary functions of the FBI are national security and law enforcement.

• The FBI does not keep a file on every citizen of the United States.

• The FBI was not established until 1908 and we have very few records prior to the 1920s.

• FBI files generally contain reports of FBI investigations of a wide range of matters, including counterterrorism,
counter-intelligence, cyber crime, public corruption, civil rights, organized crime, white collar crime, major thefts,
violent crime, and applicants.

• The FBI does not issue clearances or non-clearances for anyone other than its own personnel or persons
having access to FBI facilities. Background investigations for security clearances are conducted by many
different Government agencies. Persons who received a clearance while in the military or employed with some
other government agency should contact that entity. Most government agencies have websites which are
accessible on the internet which have their contact information.

• A criminal history summary check or “rap sheet” is NOT the same as an “FBI file.” It is a listing of information
taken from fingerprint cards and related documents submitted to the FBI in connection with arrests, federal
employment, naturalization or military service. The subject of a “rap sheet” may obtain a copy by submitting a
written request to FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, Record Request, 1000 Custer Hollow
Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306. Along with a specific written request, the individual must submit a new full
set of his/her fingerprints in order to locate the record, establish positive identification, and ensure that an
individual’s records are not disseminated to an unauthorized person. The fingerprint submission must include the
subject’s name, date and place of birth. There is a required fee of $18 for this service, which must be submitted by
money order or certified check made payable to the Treasury of the United States. A credit card payment option is
also available. Forms for this option and additional directions may be obtained by accessing the FBI Web site at
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/background-checks/background_checks.

• The National Name Check Program (NNCP) conducts a search of the FBI’s Universal Index (UNI) to identify any
information contained in FBI records that may be associated with an individual and provides the results of that
search to a requesting federal, state or local agency. Names are searched in a multitude of combinations and
phonetic spellings to ensure all records are located. The NNCP also searches for both “main” and “cross
reference” files. A main file is an entry that carries the name corresponding to the subject of a file, while a cross
reference is merely a mention of an individual contained in a file. The results from a search of this magnitude can
result in several “hits” and “idents” on an individual. In each instance where UNI has identified a name variation or
reference, information must be reviewed to determine if it is applicable to the individual in question.

• The Record/lnformation Dissemination Section (RIDS) searches for records and provides copies of FBI files
responsive to Freedom of Information or Privacy Act (FOIPA) requests for information. RIDS provides responsive
documents to requesters seeking “reasonably described information.” For a FOIPA search, the subject’s name,
event, activity, or business is searched to determine whether there is an associated investigative file. This is called
a “main file search” and differs from the NNCP search.

FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE FBI, VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT

www.fbi.gov

1/6/14

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-4 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

CHELSEA MANNING )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. l:15-CV-01654-APM

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

OF JUSTICE, ET AL )

)

Defendants )

_____________________________________)

Exhibit C

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-4 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 5

Chelsea E. Manning

89289

1300 North Warehouse Road

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-2304

2014.03.18

Federal Bureau of Investigation

F0IPA Initial Processing

170 Marcel Drive

Winchester, Virginia 22602-4843

Subject: Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Request No. 1255610-000

Initial Processing, ‘

I received your letter, dated 2014.03.07, acknowledging receipt of my Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. § 552) and Privacy Act (PA) (5 U.S.C. § 552a) request
pursuant to Part 16 of Title 28, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (28 C.F.R. §§ 16.1 et seq.)
requesting for documents, papers, working papers, reports, letters, and memoranda from
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice.

I attempted to provide as much information as possible in order to conduct your search,
however, you indicated that my letter did not contain sufficient information in order to
“conduct an accurate search of the Central Records System.” I enclosed the copy of your
letter which in which the declaration under penalty of perjury is attached. The information
provided is as follows:

a. Full Name. Bradley Edward Manning, a.k.a. Chelsea Elizabeth Manning.

b. Current Address. 1300 North Warehouse Road, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-
2304.

c. Date of Birth. 1987

d. Place of Birth. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

e. Daytime Telephone Number. 913.758.3740/913.758.5798

f. Prior Address. 1492 Selworthy Road, Potomac, Maryland 20854.

g. Time Frame. 2010.05.25 to an unknown date.

h. Case Number. 10-GJ-3793. (Request is not limited to just this, however.)

1

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-4 Filed 03/15/16 Page 3 of 5

Subject: Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Request No. 1255610-000

I respectfully repeat for clarity that I am requesting the following documents, of and
relating to investigations conducted from 2014.05.25 to an unknown date:

a. Documents, papers, reports, letters, memoranda, films, electronic data, photographs,
audio and video recordings of or relating to the investigation conducted by the Washington
Field Office (WFO), the Department of Justice Counterepionage Section (CES), the U.S.
Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia (E.D.Va.) into the alleged disclosures of
classified and sensitive by unclassified information by then-Private First Class (PFC) Bradley
Edward Manning (a.k.a. Chelsea Elizabeth Manning).

b. Any other documents, papers, reports, letters, memoranda, films, electronic data,
photographs, audio and video recordings of or relating to the investigation conducted by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies into suspected or alleged civilian co-
conspirators of the disclosures alleged to have been conducted by Manning.

I also acknowledged a willingness to pay for fees for more than two (2) hours of search
effort, and for duplication charges in excess of one hundred (100) pages. There is no
monetary limit to my willingness to pay for fees. However, I did not waive any exemptions
provided by federal statute or regulation (28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(l)(iii)).

And, I requested “expedited processing” of this request due to an “urgency to inform the
public about an actual or alleged federal government activity,” and this “matter of
widespread and exceptional media interest” (28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(l)(iv)).

With warm regards,

Enclosures: 1

1. FOIPA Receipt Letter, 1255610-000,

CHELSEA E. MANNING

2014.03.07.

2

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-4 Filed 03/15/16 Page 4 of 5

fc. U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washington, D.C. 20535

March 7, 2014

MS. CHELSEA E. MANNING
89289

1300 NORTH WAREHOUSE ROAD
FORT LEAVENWORTH, KS 66027-2304

FOIPA Request No.: 1255610-000
Subject: MANNING, BRADLEY E.

Dear Ms. Manning:

This acknowledges receipt of your Freedom of Information/Privacy Act (FOIPA) request to the FBI. The
FOIPA number listed above has been assigned to your request. Your letter did not contain sufficient information to
conduct an accurate search of the Central Records System.

Full Name: ft.ft.ft. £-Het5EQ EuTZaSeTH

Current Address: MofcTl-l WaPE WovAC fcppp , Lg Q-

Date of Birth: Q7RC?. . Place of Birth: OKLftfjQA^ft OrH ,

Daytime Telephone Number: *1 13-^ 4 1^.^ ■ 5T'^_______________________________

Please provide any additional information that you think would assist the FBI with our search for records, such
as prior addresses, employments, aliases, approximate time frame for the information sought.

1 SeiwogTHS , pQTomftc,^^ L.4IVQ CLP#,*?1/

IT»! Wrq£ * Men To Pp-BÎÊHT
CASE Uc % 1.0 - G J- 2 7^ 3> (por •'iKTTf.O Tö^

Under penalty of perjury, I hereby declare that I am the person named above and I understand that any
falsification of this statement is punishable under the provisions of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by a fine of not more than
$10,000 or by imprisonment of not more than five years, or both; and that requesting or obtaining any record(s) under
false pretenses is punishable under the provisions of Title 5 U.S.C. § 552a (i)(3), as a misdemeanor and by a fine of not
more than $5,000. The signature must be legible.

£. %.*, "

Signature,

Date

17- PWch



You can fax your request to (540) 868-4997, or mail to 170 Marcel Drive, Winchester, VA 22602, to the Attn:
Initial Processing. If we do not receive a response from you within 30 days from the date of this letter, your request will
be closed. You must include the FOIPA request number with any communication regarding this matter.

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-4 Filed 03/15/16 Page 5 of 5

You may file an appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), U.S. Department of
Justice, 1425 New York Ave., NW, Suite 11050, Washington, D.C. 20530-000, .or you may submit an appeal through
OIP’s eFOIA portal at http://www.iustice.aov/oiD/efoia-portal.html. Your appeal must be received by OIP within sixty
(60) days from the date of this letter in order to be considered timely. The envelope and the letter should be clearly
marked “Freedom of Information Appeal.” Please cite the FOIPA Request Number In any correspondence to us for
proper identification of your request.

Enclosed for your information is a copy of the FBI Fact Sheet.

Sincerely,

David M. Hardy
Section Chief
Record/I nformation
Dissemination Section
Records Management Division

Enclosure

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-5 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

CHELSEA MANNING )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-01654-APM

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

OF JUSTICE, ET AL )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

Exhibit D

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-5 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 2

U.S. Department of Justice

Fetteraf Bureau of Investigation

Washington, D.C. 20535

March 21, 2014

MS. CHELSEA E. MANNING
89289

1300 NORTH WAREHOUSE ROAD ....

FORT LEAVENWORTH, KS 66027-2304

FOIPA Request No.: 1255610-000
Subject: MANNING, BRADLEY E.

Dear Ms. Manning:

This acknowledges receipt of your Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request to the FBI.

^ Your request has been received at FBI Headquarters for processing.

•** Your request has been received at the [_________Resident Agency /___________Field Office]

and forwarded to FBI Headquarters for processing.

i*' We are searching the indices to our Central Records System for the information responsive
to this request. We will inform you of the results in future correspondence.

f” Your request for a fee waiver is being considered and you will be advised of the decision at
a later date.

^ Please check for the status of your FOIPA request at www.fbi.aov/foia.

The FOIPA Request number listed above has been assigned to your request. Please use this
number in all correspondence concerning your request. Your patience is appreciated.

Sincerely,

David M. Hardy
Section Chief,

Record/I nformation
Dissemination Section
Records Management Division

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-6 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 2

IN TflE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

CHELSEA MANNING )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. l:15-CV-01654-APM

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

OF JUSTICE, ET AL )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

Exhibit E

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-6 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 2

U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washington, D.C. 20535

April 3, 2014

MS. CHELSEA E. MANNING
89289

1300 NORTH WAREHOUSE ROAD
FORT LEAVENWORTH, KS 66027-2304

FOIPA Request No.: 1255610-000
Subject: MANNING, BRADLEY E.

Dear Ms. Manning:

This is in reference to your letter to the FBI, in which you requested expedited processing for the
above-referenced Freedom of Information /Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request. Under Department of Justice
(DOJ) standards, expedited processing can only be granted in the following situations.

You have requested expedited processing according to:

O 28 C.F.R. §16.5 (d)(1)(i): “Circumstances in which the lack of expedited treatment could
reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an
individual.”

□ 28 C.F.R. §16.5 (d)(1)(ii): “An urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged

federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating
information.”

O 28 C.F.R. §16.5 (d)(1)(iii): “The loss of substantial due process of rights.”

PI 28 C.F.R. §16.5 (d)(1)(iv): “A matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which

there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public
confidence.”

You have not provided enough information concerning the statutory requirements for expedition;
therefore, your request is denied. Specifically, the topic of this request is not a matter “in which there exist
possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public confidence.”

You may file an appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), U.S. Department
of Justice, 1425 New York Ave., NW, Suite 11050, Washington, D.C. 20530-0001, or you may submit an
appeal through OIP’s eFOIA portal at http://www.iustice.aov/oip/efoia-Portal.html. Your appeal must be
received by OIP within sixty (60) days from the date of this letter in order to be considered timely. The
envelope and the letter should be clearly marked “Freedom of Information Appeal.” Please cite the FOIPA
Request Number in any correspondence to us for proper identification of your request.

Sincerely,

David M. Hardy
Section Chief
Record/I nformation
Dissemination Section
Records Management Division

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-7 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

CHELSEA MANNING )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil ActionNo. 1:15-CV-01654-APM

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

OF JUSTICE, ET AL )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

Exhibit F

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-7 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 4

U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washington, D.C. 20535

April 8, 2014

MS. CHELSEA E. MANNING
89289

1300 NORTH WAREHOUSE ROAD
FORT LEAVENWORTH, KS 66027-2304

FOIPA Request No.: 1255610-000
Subject: MANNING, BRADLEY E.

Dear Ms. Manning:

This responds to your Freedom of Informatlon/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request.

The material you requested is located in an Investigative file which is exempt from disclosure
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) exempts from disclosure:

The records responsive to your request are law enforcement records; there is a pending or
prospective law enforcement proceeding relevant to these responsive records, and release of the information
in these responsive records could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. For a
further explanation of this exemption, see the enclosed Explanation of Exemptions.

In accordance with standard FBI practice and pursuant to FOIA exemption (b)(7)(E)/ Privacy
Act exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. § 552/552a (b)(7)(E)/(j)(2)], this response neither confirms nor denies the
existence of your subject's name on any watch lists.

For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national
security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S. C. § 552(c) (2006 & Supp. IV (2010). This
response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard
notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records
do, or do not, exist.

You may file an appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), U.S. Department
of Justice, 1425 New York Ave., NW, Suite 11050, Washington, D.C. 20530-0001, or you may submit an
appeal through OIP’s eFOIA portal at http://www.iustice.Qov/oip/efoia-portal.html. Your appeal must be
received by OIP within sixty (60) days from the date of this letter in order to be considered timely. The
envelope and the letter should be clearly marked “Freedom of Information Appeal.” Please cite the FOIPA
Request Number in any correspondence to us for proper identification of your request.

records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only
to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or
information ... could reasonably be expected to interfere with
enforcement proceedings...

Sincerely,

David M. Hardy
Section Chief,
Record/lnformation

Dissemination Section
Records Management Division

Enclosures

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-7 Filed 03/15/16 Page 3 of 4

FBI FACT SHEET

• The primary functions of the FBI are national security and law enforcement.

• The FBI does not keep a file on every citizen of the United States.

• The FBI was not established until 1908 and we have very few records prior to the 1920s.

• FBI files generally contain reports of FBI investigations of a wide range of matters, including counterterrorism,
counter-intelligence, cyber crime, public corruption, civil rights, organized crime, white collar crime, major thefts,
violent crime, and applicants.

• The FBI does not issue clearances or non-clearances for anyone other than its own personnel or persons
having access to FBI facilities. Background investigations for security clearances are conducted by many
different Government agencies. Persons who received a clearance while in the military or employed with some
other government agency should contact that entity. Most government agencies have websites which are
accessible on the internet which have their contact information.

• A criminal history summary check or “rap sheet” is NOT the same as an “FBI file.” It is a listing of information
taken from fingerprint cards and related documents submitted to the FBI in connection with arrests, federal
employment, naturalization or military service. The subject of a “rap sheet” may obtain a copy by submitting a
written request to FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, Record Request, 1000 Custer Hollow
Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306. Along with a specific written request, the individual must submit a new full
set of his/her fingerprints in order to locate the record, establish positive identification, and ensure that an
individual’s records are not disseminated to an unauthorized person. The fingerprint submission must include the
subject’s name, date and place of birth. There is a required fee of $18 for this service, which must be submitted by
money order or certified check made payable to the Treasury of the United States. A credit card payment option is
also available. Forms for this option and additional directions may be obtained by accessing the FBI Web site at
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/background-checks/background_checks.

• The National Name Check Program (NNCP) conducts a search of the FBI’s Universal Index (UNI) to identify any
information contained in FBI records that may be associated with an individual and provides the results of that
search to a requesting federal, state or local agency. Names are searched in a multitude of combinations and
phonetic spellings to ensure all records are located. The NNCP also searches for both “main” and “cross
reference” files. A main file is an entry that carries the name corresponding to the subject of a file, while a cross
reference is merely a mention of an individual contained in a file. The results from a search of this magnitude can
result in several “hits” and “idents” on an individual. In each instance where UNI has identified a name variation or
reference, information must be reviewed to determine if it is applicable to the individual in question.

• The Record/lnformation Dissemination Section (RIDS) searches for records and provides copies of FBI files
responsive to Freedom of Information or Privacy Act (FOIPA) requests for information. RIDS provides responsive
documents to requesters seeking “reasonably described information.” For a FOIPA search, the subject’s name,
event, activity, or business is searched to determine whether there is an associated investigative file. This is called
a “main file search” and differs from the NNCP search.

FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE FBI, VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT

www.fbi.aov

1/6/14

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-7 Filed 03/15/16 Page 4 of 4

EXPLANATION OF EXEMPTIONS
SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552

(b)(1) (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign

policy and (B) are in fact properly classified to such Executive order;

(b)(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;

(b)(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute(A) requires that the matters
be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers
to particular types of matters to be withheld; .

(b)(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

(b)(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with
the agency;

(b)(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(b)(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or

information (A ) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, ( B ) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial
or an impartial adjudication, (C ) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could
reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private
institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of record or information compiled by a criminal law
enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence
investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, ( E ) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement
investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could
reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or ( F ) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any
individual;

(b)(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the
regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or

(b)(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.

SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552a

(d)(5) information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action proceeding;

(j) (2) material reporting investigative efforts pertaining to the enforcement of criminal law including efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or

apprehend criminals;

(k) (l) information which is currently and properly classified pursuant to an Executive order in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy,

for example, information involving intelligence sources or methods;

(k)(2) investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than criminal, which did not result in loss of a right, benefit or privilege
under Federal programs, or which would identify a source who furnished information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be
held in confidence;

(k)(3) material maintained in connection with providing protective services to the President of the United States or any other individual pursuant
to the authority of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3056;

(k)(4) required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical records;

(k)(5) investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment

or for access to classified information, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who furnished information pursuant to
a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence;

(k)(6) testing or examination material used to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in Federal Government service he
release of which would compromise the testing or examination process;

(k)(7) material used to determine potential for promotion in the armed services, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person
who furnished the material pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence.

FBI/DOJ

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-8 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

CHELSEA MANNING )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-01654-APM

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

OF JUSTICE, ET AL )

)

Defendants )

_____________________________________)

Exhibit G

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-8 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 3

C.«f^

Chelsea E. Manning

89289

1300 North Warehouse Road

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-2304

Department of Justice

Office of Information Policy (OIP)

1425 New York Avenue NW, Suite 11050
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

2014.04.11

RECEIVED

Subject: Appeal to Denial of Expedited Processing for Freedom of Information Act/Privacy
Act (FOIPA) Request No. 1255610-000

Director of Office of Information Policy:

I hereby appeal the decision of David M. Hardy, Section Chief, Record/lnformation
Dissemination Section, Records Management Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation for
the denial of my request for expedited processing for my Freedom of Information Act/Privacy
Act (FOIPA) Request, Request No. 1255610-000 requesting for documents pertaining to the
criminal investigation surrounding the alleged unauthorized release and publication of
documents by former Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning, now known as Chelsea E.
Manning.

My request cited part 16.5(d)(l)(iv) of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations (28 CFR §
16.5(d)(l)(iv)) in which I indicated that this request is "a matter of widespread and
exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government's
intergity which affect public confidence." This request was denied, allegedly because I had
not "provided enough information concerning the statutory requirements for expedition," and
specifically, that this request is not a matter "in which there exist possible questions about
the government's integrity which affect public confidence."

This is an unusual denial made with bad faith on the part of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, especially given the extremely widespread and very public debate regarding
the Department of Justice's unusual stance and posture regarding national security leaks
and investigating journalists and prosecuting their sources with the clear intent of
prosecuting journalists.

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-8 Filed 03/15/16 Page 3 of 3

Subject: Appeal to Denial of Expedited Processing for Freedom of Information Act/Privacy
Act (FOIPA) Request No. 1255610-000

This interest is especially acute in the case which I am requesting information from, the
investigation and court-martial by the military of then-PFC Manning; a case in which the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice played a vital role since the
beginning of the investigation on 2010.05.25.

Respectfully requested,

CHELSEA E. MANNING

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-9 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

CHELSEA MANNING )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-01654-APM

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

OF JUSTICE, ET AL )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

Exhibit H

a \ Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM

¿rut* vasVK

Document 12-9 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of

Chelsea E. Manning

*89289

1300 North Warehouse Road
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-2304

2014.04.17

Department of J ustlce

Director, Office of Information Policy
1425 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 11050
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

&>l

Subject: Appeal to Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Request-Request No.
1255610-000

Director, Office of Information Policy,

This letter is in response to the denial of my request under the Freedom of
Information/Privacy Act (FOIPA) (5 U.S.C. §§ 552,552a) by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), Request No. 1255610-000.

I hereby request an appeal to the decision on 2014.04.08 by the Section Chief,
Record/lnformation Dissemination Section, Records Management Division, FBI to exempt
the documents I requested pursuant to § 552(b)(7)(A):

... records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the
extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information [...] could
reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings...

1 also note that my request also invoked the Privacy Act (PA) (5 U.S.C. § 552a). No
cognizable response to the Privacy Act portion of my request was given in the letter, though
if it is a form of Glomar response, I shall also now appeal the Glomar response.

Respectfully submitted,

'//ÍjMÍA



CHELSEA E. MANNING

Received

^3 0 2014

°ftce of Information Policy

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-10 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

CHELSEA MANNING )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-01654-APM

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

OF JUSTICE, ET AL )

)

Defendants )

_____________________________________)

Exhibit I

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-10 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 6

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Information Policy
Suite 11050

1425 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Telephone: (202) 514-3642

April 29,2014

Ms. Chelsea E. Manning
Register No. 89289
1300 North Warehouse Road
Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-2304

VIA: U.S. Mail

Re: Appeal No. AP-2014-02594

Request No. 1255610-000
SRO:RRK

Dear Ms. Manning:

This is to advise you that your administrative appeal from the action of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation was received in this Office on April 24,2014. You appealed from the
FBI's denial of your request for expedited treatment of your request.

The FBI responded to your request by letter dated April 8,2014. (copy enclosed).
Because the FBI responded to your request, your appeal from the FBI's failure to grant expedited
processing of your request is moot. Accordingly, I am closing your appeal file in this Office.

Sincerely,

Sean R. O'Neill
Chief

Administrative Appeals Staff

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-10 Filed 03/15/16 Page 3 of 6

-2-

Enclosure

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-10 Filed 03/15/16 Page 4 of 6

U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washington, D.C. 20535

April 8,2014

MS. CHELSEA E. MANNING
89289

1300 NORTH WAREHOUSE ROAD
FORT LEAVENWORTH, KS 66027-2304

FOIPA Request No.: 1255610-000
Subject: MANNING, BRADLEY E.

Dear Ms. Manning:

This responds to your Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request.

The material you requested is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) exempts from disclosure:

The records responsive to your request are law enforcement records; there is a pending or
prospective law enforcement proceeding relevant to these responsive records, and release of the information
in these responsive records could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. For a
further explanation of this exemption, seethe enclosed Explanation of Exemptions.

In accordance with standard FBI practice and pursuant to FOIA exemption (b)(7)(E)/ Privacy
Act exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. § 5521552a (b)(7)(E)/(J)(2)], this response neither confirms nor denies the
existence of your subject's name on any watch lists.

' For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national

security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S. C. § 552(c) (2006 & Supp. IV (2010). This
response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard
notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records
do, or do not, exist.

You may file an appeal by writing to the Director, Office of information Policy (OIP), U.S. Department
of Justice, 1425 New York Ave., NW, Suite 11050, Washington, D.C. 20530-0001, or you may submit an
appeal through OIP’s eFOIA portal at http://www.iustice.qov/oiD/efoia-portai.html. Your appeal must be
received by OIP within sixty (60) days from the date of this letter in order to be considered timely. The
envelope and the letter should be dearly marked "Freedom of Information Appeal.” Please cite the FOIPA
Request Number in any correspondence to us for proper identification of your request.

records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only
to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or
information ... could reasonably be expected to interfere with
enforcement proceedings...

Sincerely,

David M. Hardy
Section Chief,
Record/lnformation

Dissemination Section
Records Management Division

Enclosures

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-10 Filed 03/15/16 Page 5 of 6

FBI FACT SHEET

• The primary functions of the FBI are national security and law enforcement.

• The FBI does not keep a file on every citizen of the United States.

• The FBI was not established until 1908 and we have very few records prior to the 1920s.

• FBI files generally contain reports of FBI investigations of a wide range of matters, including counterterrorism,
counter-intelligence, cyber crime, public corruption, civil rights, organized crime, white collar crime, major thefts,
violent crime, and applicants.

• The FBI does not issue clearances or non-clearances for anyone other than its own personnel or persons
having access to FBI facilities. Background investigations for security clearances are conducted by many
different Government agencies. Persons who received a clearance while in the military or employed with some
other government agency should contact that entity. Most government agencies have websites which are
accessible on the internet which have their contact information.

• A criminal history summary check or “rap sheet” is NOT the same as an “FBI file.” It is a listing of information
taken from fingerprint cards and related documents submitted to the FBI in connection with arrests, federal
employment, naturalization or military service. The subject of a “rap sheet” may obtain a copy by submitting a
written request to FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, Record Request, 1000 Custer HoHow
Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306. Along with a specific written request, the individual must submit a new full
set of his/her fingerprints in order to locate the record, establish positive identification, and ensure that an
individual’s records are not disseminated to an unauthorized person. The fingerprint submission must include the
subject’s name, date and place of birth. There is a required fee of $18 for this service, which must be submitted by
money order or certified check made payable to the Treasury of the United States. A credit card payment option is
also available. Forms for this option and additional directions may be obtained by accessing the FBI Web site at
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/background-checks/background_checks.

• The National Name Check Program (NNCP) conducts a search of the FBI’s Universal Index (UNI) to identify any
information contained in FBI records that may be associated with an individual and provides the results of that
search to a requesting federal, state or local agency. Names are searched in a multitude of combinations and
phonetic spellings to ensure all records are located. The NNCP also searches for both “main” and “cross
reference” files. A main file is an entry that carries the name corresponding to the subject of a file, while a cross
reference is merely a mention of an individual contained in a file. The results from a search of this magnitude can
result in several “hits” and “¡dents” on an individual. In each instance where UNI has identified a name variation or
reference, information must be reviewed to determine if it is applicable to the individual in question.

• The Record/lnformatlon Dissemination Section (RIDS) searches for records and provides copies of FBI files
responsive to Freedom of Information or Privacy Act (FOIPA) requests for information. RIDS provides responsive
documents to requesters seeking “reasonably described information.” For a FOIPA search, the subject’s name,
event, activity, or business is searched to determine whether there is an associated investigative file. This is called
a “main file search" and differs from the NNCP search.

FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE FBI, VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT

www.fbi.aov

1/6/14

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-10 Filed 03/15/16 Page 6 of 6

EXPLANATION OF EXEMPTIONS
SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552

(b)( 1) (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign

policy and (B) are in fact properly classified to such Executive order;

(b)(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;

(bX3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute(A) requires that the matters
be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers
to particular types of matters to be withheld;

(b)(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

(b)(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with
the agency;

(b)(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(b)(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or

information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, ( B ) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial
or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could
reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private
institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of record or information compiled by a criminal law
enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence
investigation, information fiimished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement
investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could
reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any
individual;

(bX8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf o£ or for the use of an agency responsible for the

regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or

(b)(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.

SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552a

(d)(5) information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action proceeding;

(j) (2) material reporting investigative efforts pertaining to the enforcement of criminal law including efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or

apprehend criminals;

(k) (l) information which is currently and properly classified pursuant to an Executive order in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy,

for example, information involving intelligence sources or methods;

(kX2) investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than criminal, which did not result in loss of a right, benefit or privilege
under Federal programs, or which would identify a source who furnished information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be
held in confidence;

(k)(3) material maintained in connection with providing protective services to the President of the United States or any other individual pursuant
to the authority of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3056;

(k)(4) required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical records;

(k)(5) investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment

or for access to classified information, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who furnished information pursuant to
a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence;

(k)(6) testing or examination material used to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in Federal Government service he
release of which would compromise the testing or examination process;

(k)(7) material used to determine potential for promotion in the armed services, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person
who furnished the material pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence.

FBI/DOJ

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-11 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

CHELSEA MANNING )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-01654-APM

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

OF JUSTICE, ET AL )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

Exhibit J

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-11 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 2

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Information Policy

Telephone: (202) 514-3642

Washington, D.C. 20530
May 7, 2014

Mr. Chelsea E. Manning
No. 89289

1300 North Warehouse Road
Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-2304

Re: Request No. 1255610
Dear Mr. Manning:

This is to advise you that your administrative appeal from the action of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation was received by this Office on April 30, 2014.

The Office of Information Policy has the responsibility of adjudicating such appeals. In
an attempt to afford each appellant equal and impartial treatment, we have adopted a general
practice of assigning appeals in the approximate order of receipt. Your appeal has been assigned
number AP-2014-02758. Please mention this number in any future correspondence to this
Office regarding this matter. Please note that if you provide an e-mail address or another
electronic means of communication with your appeal, this Office may respond to your appeal
electronically even if you submitted your appeal to this Office via regular U.S. Mail.

We will notify you of the decision on your appeal as soon as we can. If you have any
questions about the status of your appeal, you may contact me at the number above. If you have
submitted your appeal through this Office's online electronic appeal portal, you may also obtain
an update on the status of your appeal by logging into your portal account.

Sincerely,

Priscilla Jones

Supervisory Administrative Specialist

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

CHELSEA MANNING )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-01654-APM

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

OF JUSTICE, ET AL )

)

Defendants )

__________:__________________________)

Exhibit K

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 3

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Information Policy

Suite 11050

1425 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Telephone: (202) 514-3642

August 7,2014

Ms. Chelsea E. Manning
Register No. 89289
United States Disciplinary Barracks
1300 North Warehouse Road
Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027

Re: Appeal No. AP-2014-02758

Request No. 1255610
SRO:AMJ

VIA: U.S. Mail

Dear Ms. Manning:

You appealed from the action of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on your request for
access to records concerning yourself, formerly known as Bradley E. Manning.

After carefully considering your appeal, I am affirming the FBI's action on your request.
In order to provide you with the greatest possible access to responsive records, your request was
reviewed under both the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Freedom of Information Act. This Office
has determined that the records responsive to your request are exempt from the access provision
of the Privacy Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2); see also 28 C.F.R. § 16.96 (2013). For this
reason, I have reviewed your appeal under the FOIA.

The FOIA provides for disclosure of many agency records. At the same time, Congress
included in the FOIA nine exemptions from disclosure that provide protection for important
interests such as personal privacy, privileged communications, and certain law enforcement
activities. The FBI properly withheld this information in full because it is protected from
disclosure under the FOIA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). This provision concerns records
or information compiled for law enforcement purposes the release of which could reasonably be
expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.

Please be advised that this Office's decision was made only after a full review of this
matter. Your appeal was assigned to an attorney with this Office who thoroughly reviewed and
analyzed your appeal, your underlying request, and the action of the FBI in response to your
request.

If you are dissatisfied with my action on your appeal, the FOIA permits you to file a
lawsuit in federal district court in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).

For your information, the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) offers
mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a non-
exclusive alternative to litigation. Using OGIS services does not affect your right to pursue

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 3 of 3

-2-

litigation. The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information
Services, National Archives and Records Administration, Room 2510, 8601 Adelphi Road,
College Park, Maryland 20740-6001; e-mail at ogis@nara.gov; telephone at 202-741-5770; toll
free at 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at 202-741-5769.

Sincerely,

Sean R. O'Neill
Chief

Administrative Appeals Staff

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-13 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

CHELSEA MANNING )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-01654-APM

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

OF JUSTICE, ET AL )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

Exhibit L

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-13 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 17

Chelsea E. Manning

89289

1300 North Warehouse Road

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-2304

2015.01.05

Office of Government Information Services

National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road, Room 2510
College Park. Maryland 20740-6001

Investigation Records Pertaining to Chelsea E. Manning (formerly Bradley E. Manning)

To Whom It May Concern:

As an alternative to inevitable and potentially protracted litigation before a Federal District
Court, I request that you mediate and resolve the dispute between myseif and the Attorney
General regarding my Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. § 552) request for:

a. Records of and pertaining to the investigation conducted by the Washington Field
office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the
Eastern District of Virginia into the alleged disclosures of classified and sensitive but
unclassified information by then Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning—now
Chelsea E. Manning—beginning in late 2010 and continuing until an unknown date,
but as late as mid-2012; and,

b. Any other records of and relating to the investigation conducted by the FBI and the
U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Virginia into alleged civilian co-
conspirators of the disclosures of information by then-PFC Manning.

I believe that the FBI and the Attorney General are improperly withholding this information in
full under exemption (7)(A) of the FOIA. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). My position is that the FBI
is withholding documents in full that can be redacted and released to the public—and that
the documents in question are in the public interest due to an ongoing question of the role
of the FBI and this administration in conducting politically charged investigations to stifle
domestic dissent.

Respectfully Requested,

Enclosures: 11

CHELSEA E. MANNING
FOIA Requestor

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-13 Filed 03/15/16 Page 3 of 17

Chelsea E. Manning

89289

1300 North Warehouse Road

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-2304

2014.02.20

Federal Bureau of Investigation

935 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20620

To Whom It May Concern:

PutsuanWo the Freedom et tafoimatvw Act(FCM)(5 U.S.C. § 552), the Privacy Act (PA)
(5 U.S.C. § 552a), and Part 16 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (32 C.F.R.
§§ 16.1 et seq.), I hereby request the following documents, papers, working papers, reports,
letters, and memoranda from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of
Justice.

c. Documents, papers, reports, letters, memoranda, films, electronic data, photographs,
audio and video recordings of or relating to investigation conducted by the Washington Field
Office of ffie Fetietaf Bureau of Investigation anti the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Eastern
District of Virginia into the alleged disclosures of classified and sensitive but unclassified
information by Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning beginning in late 2010 and
continuing until an unknown date, but as late as mid-2012.

d. Any other documents, papers, reports, letters, memoranda, films, electronic data,
photographs, audio and video recordings of or relating to the investigation conducted by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Eastern District of'
Virginia into alleged civilian co-conspirators of the disclosures of information by Manning.

Pursuant to 32 C.F.R. § 16.11, (acknowledge a willingness to pay for fees for more than
two (2) hours of search effort, and for duplication charges in excess of one hundred (100)
pages. There is no monetary limit to my willingness to pay for fees. Though, I am not
waiving any exemptions provided by federal statute or regulation. Also pursuant to 32 C.F.R.
§ 16.5(d), I hereby request "expedited processing" of this request due to an “urgency to
inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity," and a “matter of
widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the
government’s integrity which affect public confidence," in accordance with 32 C.F.R. §
16.5(d)(lKii) and (dXD(iv).

Thank you,



CHELSEA E. MANNING

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM

Document 12-13 Filed 03/15/16 Page 4 of 17

U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washington, D.C. 20535

March 7, 2014

MS. CHELSEA E. MANNING
89289

1300 NORTH WAREHOUSE ROAD
FORT LEAVENWORTH. KS 66027-2304

FOIPA Request No.: 1255610000
Subject: MANNING, BRADLEY E.

Dear Ms. Manning:

This acknowledges receipt of your Freedom of Information/Privacy Act (FOIPA) request to the FBI. The
FOIPA number listed above has been assigned to your request. Your letter did not contain sufficient information to
conduct an accurate search of the Central Records System.

Full Name:, flVwwJfr-, A.K.ft, C-HgtElTZAftCTH

Current Address: l^e><2> MofeTH W^REkovTC RpPP , U kliiA27

Date of Birth: . Place of Birth: Cn( , &A

Daytime Telephone Number: ^ 13- ^ , yU-j <0 9 j.'b. . 5*1- ______________

Please provide any additional information that you think would assist the FBI with our search for records, such
as prior addresses, employments, aliases, approximate time frame for the information sought.

QPcfcES? I 1*191 SclwoCths . PoTomfrC'fVUfci U»KP CLoffFW

f*s
CA^S ^ o CNOT
Under penalty of perjury, I hereby declare that I am the person named above and I understand that any
falsification of this statement is punishable under the provisions of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by a fine of not more than
$10,000 or by imprisonment of not more than five years, or both; and that requesting or obtaining any record(s) under
false pretenses is punishable under the provisions of Title 5 U.S.C. § 552a (l)(3), as a misdemeanor and by a fine of not
more than $5,000. The signature must be legible.

Signature. _____________________________________-__________________________________

Date_ 1% PW¿H £.0

You can fax your request to (540) 868-4997, or mail to 170 Marcel Drive, Winchester, VA 22602, to the Attn:
Initial Processing. If we do not receive a response from you within 30 days from the date of this letter, your request will
be closed. You must include the FOIPA request number with any communication regarding this matter.

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-13 Filed 03/15/16 Page 5 of 17

You may file an appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), U.S. Department of
Justice, 1425 New York Ave., NW, Suite 11050, Washington, D C. 20530-000, or you may submit an appeal through
OIP’s eFOIA portal at http://www.iustice.qov/oio/efoia-portal.html. Your appeal must be received by OIP within sixty
(60) days from the date of this letter in order to be considered timely. The envelope and the letter should be clearly
marked “Freedom of Information Appeal.” Please cite the FOIPA Request Number in any correspondence to us for
proper identification of your request.

Enclosed for your information is a copy of the FBI Fact Sheet.

Sincerely,

David M. Hardy
Section Chief
Record/lnformation
Dissemination Section
Records Management Division

Enclosure

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-13 Filed 03/15/16 Page 6 of 17

Chelsea E. Manning

89289

1300 North Warehouse Road .

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-2304

2014.03.18

Federal Bureau of Investigation

FOiPA Initia) Processing

170 Marcel Drive

Winchester, Virginia 22602-4843

Subject: Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Request No. 1255610-000

Initial Processing,

i received your letter, dated 2014.03.07, acknowledging receipt of my Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. § 552) and Privacy Act (PA) (5 U.S.C. § 552a) request
pursuant to Part 16 of Title 28, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (28 C.F.R. §§ 16.1 etseq.)
requesting for documents, papers, working papers, reports, letters, and memoranda from
the Federal Bureau of Investigjation and Department of Justice.

I attempted to provide as much information as possible in order to conduct your search,
huwerveT, you indicated that my ietteT did not contain sufficient information in OTdeT to
"conduct an accurate search of the Central Records System.” I enclosed the copy of your
letter which in which the declaration under penalty of perjury is attached. The information
provided is as follows:

a. Full Name. Bradley Edward Manning, a.k.a. Chelsea Elizabeth Manning.

b. Current Address. 1300 North Warehouse Road, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-
2304.

c. Date of Birth. 1987.(1^^^ 5 ^

d. Place of Birth. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

e. Daytime Telephone Number. 913.758.3740/913.758.5798

f. Prior Address. 1492 Selworthy Road, Potomac, Maryland 20854.

g. Time Frame. 2010.05.25 to an unknown date.

h. Case Number. 10-GJ-3793. (Request is not limited to just this, however.)

1

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-13 Filed 03/15/16 Page 7 of 17

Subject: Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Request No. 1255610-000

I respectfully repeat for clarity that I am requesting the following documents, of and
relating to investigations conducted from 2014.05.25 to an unknown date-.

a. Documents, papers, reports, letters, memoranda, films, electronic data, photographs,
audio and video recordings of or relating to the investigation conducted by the Washington
Field Office (WFO), the Department of Justice Counterepionage Section (CES), the U.S.
Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia (E.O.Va.) into the alleged disclosures of
classified and sensitive by unclassified information by then-Private First Class (PFC) Bradley
Edward Manning (a.k.a. Chelsea Elizabeth Manning).

b. Any other documents, papers, reports, letters, memoranda, films, electronic data,
photographs, audio and video recordings of or relating to the investigation conducted by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies into suspected or alleged civilian co-
conspirators of the disclosures alleged to have been conducted by Manning.

I also acknowledged a willingness to pay for fees for more than two (2) hours of search
effort, and for duplication charges in excess of one hundred (100) pages. There is no
monetary limit to my willingness to pay for fees. However, I did not waive any exemptions
provided by federal statute or regulation (28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(l)(iii)).

And, I requested "expedited processing” of this request due to an “urgency to inform the
public about an actual or alleged federal government activity," and this "matter of
widespread and exceptional media interest” (28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(l)(iv)).

With warm regards,

Enclosures: 1

1. FOIPA Receipt Letter, 1255610-000,

CHELSEA E. MANNING

2014.03.07.

2

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-13 Filed 03/15/16 Page 8 of 17

U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Wading ton, D.C. 20535

March 21,2014

MS. CHELSEA E. MANNING
89289

1300 NORTH WAREHOUSE ROAD
FORT LEAVENWORTH, KS 66027-2304

FOIPA Request No.: 1255610-000
Subject: MANNING, BRADLEY E.

Dear Ms. Manning:

This acknowledges receipt of your Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request to the FBI.

F

r

F

r

Your request has been received at FBI Headquarters for processing.

Your request has been received at the [____Resident Agency /__________Field Office]

and forwarded to FBI Headquarters for processing.

We are searching the indices to our Centra! Records System for the information responsive
to this request. We will inform you of the results in future correspondence.

Your request for a fee waiver is being considered and you will be advised of the decision at
a later date.

F

Please check for the status of your FOIPA request at www.fbi.gov/foia.

The FOIPA Request number listed above has been assigned to your request. Please use this
number in all correspondence concerning your request. Your patience is appreciated.

Sincerely,

David M. Hardy
Section Chief,
Record/lnformation
Dissemination Section
Records Management Division

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-13 Filed 03/15/16 Page 9 of 17

U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washington, D.C. 20535

April 3,2014

MS. CHELSEA E. MANNING
89269

1300 NORTH WAREHOUSE ROAD
FORT LEAVENWORTH, KS 66027-2304

FOIPA Request No.: 1255610-000
Subject: MANNING, BRADLEY E.

Dear Ms. Manning:

This is in reference to your letter to the FBI, in which you requested expedited processing for the
above-referenced Freedom of information /Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request. Under Department of Justice
(DOJ) standards, expedited processing can only be granted in the following situations.

You have requested expedited processing according to:

n 28 C.F.R. §16.5 (d)(1)(i): “Circumstances in which the lack of expedited treatment could
reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an
individual."

n 28 C.F.R. §16.5 (d)(1)(H): “An urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged
federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating
information."

HI 28 C.F.R. §16.5 (d)(1 )(iii): “The loss of substantial due process of rights."

HI 28 C.F.R. §16.5 (d)(1)(iv): “A matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which

there exist possible questions about the government's integrity which affect public
confidence."

You have not provided enough information concerning the statutory requirements for expedition;
therefore, your request is denied. Specifically, the topic of this request is not a matter “in which there exist
possible questions about the government's integrity which affect public confidence."

You may file an appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), U.S. Department
of Justice, 1425 New York Ave., NW, Suite 11050, Washington, D.C. 20530-0001, or you may submit an
appeal through OIP's eFOIA portal at htto://www.iustice.aov/oio/efoia-Portal.html. Your appeal must be
received by OIP within sixty (60) days from the date of this letter in order to be considered timely. The
envelope and the letter should be dearly marked “Freedom of Information Appeal." Please dte the FOIPA
Request Number in any correspondence to us for proper identification of your request.

Sincerely,

David M. Hardy
Section Chief
Record/lnformation
Dissemination Section
Records Management Division

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-13 Filed 03/15/16 Page 10 of 17

U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washington, D.C. 20536

April 8, 2014

MS. CHELSEA E. MANNING
89289

1300 NORTH WAREHOUSE ROAD
FORT LEAVENWORTH, KS 66027-2304

FOIPA Request No.: 1255610-000
Subject MANNING, BRADLEY E.

Dear Ms. Manning:

This responds to your Freedom of information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request.

The material you requested is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) exempts from disclosure:

The records responsive to your request are law enforcement records; there is a pending or
prospective law enforcement proceeding relevant to these responsive records, and release of the information
in these responsive records could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. For a
further explanation of this exemption, see the enclosed Explanation of Exemptions.

in accordance with standard FBI practice and pursuant to FOIA exemption (b)(7)(E)/ Privacy
Act exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. § 5521552a (b)(7)(E)/(j)(2)], this response neither confirms nor denies the
existence of your subject's name on any watch lists.

For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national
security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S. C. § 552(c) (2006 & Supp. IV (2010). This
response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard
notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records
do, or do not, exist.

You may file an appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), U.S. Department
of Justice, 1425 New York Ave., NW, Suite 11050, Washington, D.C. 20530-0001, or you may submit an
appeal through OIP’s eFOIA portal at http:/Awww.iustice.aov/oip/efoia-portal.html. Your appeal must be
received by OIP within sixty (60) days from the date of this letter in order to be considered timely. The
envelope and the letter should be clearly marked “Freedom of Information Appeal." Please cite the FOIPA
Request Number in any correspondence to us for proper identification of your request.

records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only
to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or
information ... could reasonably be expected to interfere with
enforcement proceedings...

Sincerely,

David M. Hardy
Section Chief,
Record/lnformation

Dissemination Section
Records Management Division

Enclosures

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-13 Filed 03/15/16 Page 11 of 17

Chelsea E. Manning

89289

1300 North Warehouse Road

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-2304

2014.04.11

Department of Justice

Office of Information Policy (OIP)

1425 New York Avenue NW, Suite 11050
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Subject: Appeal to Denial of Expedited Processing for Freedom of Information Act/Privacy
Act (FOIPA) Request No. 1255610-000

Director of Office of Information Policy:

I hereby appeal the decision of David M. Hardy, Section Chief, Record/lnformation
Dissemination Section, Records Management Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation for
the denial of my request for expedited processing for my Freedom of Information Act/Privacy
Act (FOIPA) Request, Request No. 1255610-000 requesting for documents pertaining to the
criminal investigation surrounding the alleged unauthorized release and publication of
documents by former Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning, now known as Chelsea E.
Manning.

My request cited part 16.5(d)(l)(iv) of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations (28 CFR §
16.5(d)(l)(iv)) in which I indicated that this request is "a matter of widespread and
exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government's
intergity which affect public confidence." This request was denied, allegedly because I had
not "provided enough information concerning the statutory requirements for expedition," and
specifically, that this request is not a matter "in which there exist possible questions about
the government's integrity which affect public confidence."

This is an unusual denial made with bad faith on the part of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, especially given the extremely widespread and very public debate regarding
the Department of Justice's unusual stance and posture regarding national security leaks
and investigating journalists and prosecuting their sources with the clear intent of
prosecuting journalists.

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-13 Filed 03/15/16 Page 12 of 17

Subject: Appeal to Denial of Expedited Processing for Freedom of Information Act/Prlvacy
Act (FOIPA) Request No. 1255610-000

This interest is especially acute in the case which I am requesting information from, the
investigation and court-martial by the military of then-PFC Manning; a case in which the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice played a vital role since the
beginning of the investigation on 2010.05.25.

One only needs to enter the phrase "national security leak" in any Internet search engine
to find evidence that this case is one "in which there exist possible questions about the
governments integrity which affect pubiic confidence.11

Respectfully requested,



CHELSEA E. MANNING

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-13 Filed 03/15/16 Page 13 of 17

Chelsea E. Manning

89289

1300 North Warehouse Road

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-2304

2014.04.17

Department of Justice

Director, Office of Information Policy
1425 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 11050
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Subject: Appeal to Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Request-Request No.
1255610-000

Director, Office of Information Policy,

This letter is in response to the denial of my request under the Freedom of
Information/Privacy Act (FOIPA) (5 U.S.C. §§ 552, 552a) by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), Request No. 1255610-000.

I hereby request an appeal to the decision on 2014.04.08 by the Section Chief,
Record/lnformation Dissemination Section, Records Management Division, FBI to exempt
the documents I requested pursuant to § 552(b)(7)(A):

... records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the
extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information [...] could
reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings...

I also note that my request also invoked the Privacy Act (PA) (5 U.S.C. § 552a). No
cognizable response to the Privacy Act portion of my request was given in the letter, though
if it is a form of Glomar response, I shall also now appeal the Glomar response.

Respectfully submitted,

CHELSEA E. MANNING

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-13 Filed 03/15/16 Page 14 of 17

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Information Policy
Suite 11050

1425 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Telephone: (202) 514-3642

April 29, 2014

Ms. Chelsea E. Manning
Register No. 89289
1300 North Warehouse Road
Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-2304

VIA: U.S. Mail

Re: Appeal No. AP-2014-02594

Request No. 1255610-000
SRO:RRK

Dear Ms. Manning:

This is to advise you that your administrative appeal from the action of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation was received in this Office on April 24,2014. You appealed from the
FBI's denial of your request for expedited treatment of your request.

The FBI responded to your request by letter dated April 8, 2014. (copy enclosed).
Because the FBI responded to your request, your appeal from the FBI's failure to grant expedited
processing of your request is moot. Accordingly, I am closing your appeal file in this Office.

Sincerely.

Sean R. O'Neill
Chief

Administrative Appeals Staff

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-13 Filed 03/15/16 Page 15 of 17

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Information Policy

Telephone: (202) 514-3642

Washington, D.C. 20530
May 7,2014

Mr. Chelsea E. Manning
No. 89289

1300 North Warehouse Road
Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-2304

Re: Request No. 1255610
Dear Mr. Manning:

This is to advise you that your administrative appeal from the action of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation was received by this Office on April 30, 2014.

The Office of Information Policy has the responsibility of adjudicating such appeals. In
an attempt to afford each appellant equal and impartial treatment, we have adopted a general
practice of assigning appeals in the approximate order of receipt. Your appeal has been assigned
number AP-2014-02758. Please mention this number in any future correspondence to this
Office regarding this matter. Please note that if you provide an e-mail address or another
electronic means of communication with your appeal, this Office may respond to your appeal
electronically even if you submitted your appeal to this Office via regular U.S. Mail.

We will notify you of the decision on your appeal as soon as we can. If you have any
questions about the status of your appeal, you may contact me at the number above. If you have
submitted your appeal through this Office's online electronic appeal portal, you may also obtain
an update on the status of your appeal by logging into your portal account.

Sincerely,

Priscilla Jones

Supervisory Administrative Specialist

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-13 Filed 03/15/16 Page 16 of 17

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Information Policy

Suite 11050

1425 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Telephone: (202) 514-3642

August 7,2014

Ms. Chelsea E. Manning
Register No. 89289
United States Disciplinary Barracks
1300 North Warehouse Road
Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027

Re: Appeal No. AP-2014-02758

Request No. 1255610
SRO:AMJ

VIA: U.S. Mail

Dear Ms. Manning:

You appealed from the action of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on your request for
access to records concerning yourself, formerly known as Bradley E. Manning.

After carefully considering your appeal, I am affirming the FBI's action on your request.
In order to provide you with the greatest possible access to responsive records, your request was
reviewed under both the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Freedom of Information Act. This Office
has determined that the records responsive to your request are exempt from the access provision
of the Privacy Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(h(2'): see also 28 C.F.R. § 16.96 (2013). For this
reason, I have reviewed your appeal under the FOIA.

The FOIA provides for disclosure of many agency records. At the same time, Congress
included in the FOIA nine exemptions from disclosure that provide protection for important
interests such as personal privacy, privileged communications, and certain law enforcement
activities. The FBI properly withheld this information in full because it is protected from
disclosure under the FOIA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). This provision concerns records
or information compiled for law enforcement purposes the release of which could reasonably be
expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.

Please be advised that this Office's decision was made only after a full review of this
matter. Your appeal was assigned to an attorney with this Office who thoroughly reviewed and
analyzed your appeal, your underlying request, and the action of the FBI in response to your
request.

If you are dissatisfied with my action on your appeal, the FOIA permits you to file a
lawsuit in federal district court in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).

For your information, the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) offers
mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a non-
exclusive alternative to litigation. Using OGIS services does not affect your right to pursue

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-13 Filed 03/15/16 Page 17 oM?

-2-

litigation. The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information
Services, National Archives and Records Administration, Room 2510, 8601 Adelphi Road,
College Park, Maryland 20740-6001; e-mail at ogis@nara.gov; telephone at 202-741-5770; toll
free at 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at 202-741-5769.

Sincerely,

Sean R. O'Neill
Chief

Administrative Appeals Staff

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-14 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

CHELSEA MANNING )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-01654-APM

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

OF JUSTICE, ET AL )

)

Defendants )

_____________________________________)

Exhibit M

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-14 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 2

OGIS

OFFICE ✓GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION SERVICES

OFFICE of GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES



January 16, 2015- Sent via U.S. mail

NATIONAL
ARCHIVES
,.i RECORDS
ADMINISTRATION

8601 ADELPHI ROAD
COLLEGE PARK. MD
20740-6001

web: www.ogis.anhivts.gov
t-mail: ogis@rura.gov
phene: 201-741-5770
td&-fm:t-f77-iS4-644>

$0:202-741-5769

Ms. Chelsea Manning

89289 Re: Case No. 201500307

1300...

Dear Ms. Manning:

Thank you for contacting the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS).
Your request for assistance, which we received on January 13, 2015, via U.S. mail,
will be assigned to an OGIS facilitator who will contact you direcdy.

For tracking purposes, we assigned your request for assistance the case number
listed above. Please cite this case number in all communications to our office
regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

The OGIS Staff

Office of Government Information Services

NATIONAL

ARCHIVES

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-15 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

CHELSEA MANNING )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-01654-APM

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

OF JUSTICE, ET AL )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

Exhibit N

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-15 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 3

OGIS

OFFICE «^GOVERNMENT

OFFICE of GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

NATIONAL
ARCHIVES
..J RECORDS
ADMINISTRATION

8601 ADELPHI ROAD
OGIS

COLLEGE PARK, MD
20740-6001

web: www.ogis.archim.goy
e-mail: ogis@nara.gov
photic: iot-74i-5770
toiI-fitci-S77-6S4-644S
fox:102-741-5769

NATIONAL

ARCHIVES

February 24,201S — Sent via U.S, mail

Ms. Chelsea E. Manning
Register No. 89289
United States Disciplinary Barracks
1300 North Warehouse Road

Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027 Re: Case No.: 201500307

NG: CM

Dear Ms. Manning:

This responds to your January 5, 2015 request for assistance from the Office of
Government Information Services (OGIS), which we received via U.S. mail. Your
request for assistance pertains to your records request to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI).

Congress created OGIS to complement existing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
practice and procedure; we strive to work in conjunction with the existing request and
appeal process. The goal is for OGIS to allow, whenever practical, the requester to
exhaust his or her remedies within the agency, including the appeal process. OGIS has
no investigatory or enforcement power, nor can we compel an agency to release
documents. OGIS serves as the Federal FOIA Ombudsman and our jurisdiction is
limited to assisting with the FOIA process.

Please know that when an individual requests access to his or her own records, it is
most often, but not always, considered a Privacy Act, or first-party, request. Privacy
Act matters fall outside the scope of our office’s mission as the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) Ombudsman. However, many Privacy Act requests overlap
with FOIA; therefore, OGIS provides ombuds services, including providing
information about the process and the status of requests, to individuals requesting their
own records. OGIS does not have a statutory role in reviewing policies, procedures
and compliance with the Privacy Act as we do with FOIA.

You filed a request with the FBI for records about yourself. The FBI responded to
your request by withholding all responsive records pursuant to FOLA Exemption 7(A),
5 U.S.C. § 552(bX7XA). You appealed this response, and the Department of Justice
Office of Information Policy upheld the FBI’s determination on your request.

Exemption 7(A) protects law enforcement records pertaining to a pending or
prospective law enforcement investigation or proceeding when release of information
could “reasonably be expected to interfere” with that investigation or enforcement
proceeding, meaning it would cause some articulable harm. Courts have recognized
specific harm that disclosure of records can cause a law ehforcement proceeding,
including the premature release of witness statements and potential documentary
evidence.

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-15 Filed 03/15/16 Page 3 of 3

Ms. Chelsea E. Manning
February 24,2015
Page 2 of2

In your correspondence to OGIS, you cite the public and media interest in your legal situation. Please
know that unlike some other FOIA exemptions, agencies withholding records pursuant to Exemption
7(A) are not required to balance public interest in the withheld records against privacy concerns.

Exemption 7(A) is temporal in nature and not intended to "endlessly protect material simply because it
is in an investigatory file," according to the Department of Justice Guide to the Freedom of Information
Act. Courts have ruled that Exemption 7(A) remains applicable throughout long-term law enforcement
investigations. It may be helpful to know that as part of the appeals process on cases such as yours, OIP
confirms that Exemption 7(A) is still applicable to the records sought at the time of the appeal.

While the FBI cannot provide information about when Exemption 7(A) may no longer apply to
particular records, you may wish to file a new request for these records at some point in the future to see
if 7(A)'s protections have been lifted. Please be aware that once Exemption 7(A) is no longer applicable
to the records you seek, other FOIA exemptions may apply.

I hope you find this information useful in understanding why the FBI withheld the material it did in
response to your request. At this time, there is no further assistance OGIS can offer. Thank you for
bringing this matter to OGIS. We will close your case.

Sincerely,

Nikki Gramian, Acting Director

Office of Government Information Services (OGIS)

cc: Dennis Argali, FBI FOIA Public Liaison

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-16 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHELSEA MANNING,

Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01654-APM

US. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and the
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

Defendants.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
AS TO WHICH THERE TS NO GENUINE ISSUE

As required by Local Rule 7(h)(1), and in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment
filed on behalf of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(“Defendants”), Defendants hereby make the following statement of material facts as to which
there is no genuine issue:

1. Manning sent the FBI a document request dated F ebruary 20, 2015. See
Declaration of David M. Hardy (“Hardy Decl.”), attached to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment as Ex. 1, ^ 6; Ex. A to Ex. 1.

2. Manning’s request sought records “of or relating to investigation conducted by

the Washington Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s

Office of the Eastern District of Virginia into the alleged disclosures of classified and sensitive

but unclassified information by Private First Class (PFC) Bradley E. Manning, beginning in late

2010 and continuing until an unknown date, but as late as mid-2012.” Hardy Decl. ^ 6, Ex. A.

Manning also sought records “of or relating to the investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau

1

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-16 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 6

of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Virginia into alleged
civilian co-conspirators of the disclosures of information by Manning.” Hardy Decl. ^ 6, Ex. A.

3. The FBI responded to Manning’s request in a letter dated March 7, 2014. See
Hardy Decl. ^ 7, Ex. B. The FBI informed Manning that her request “did not contain sufficient
information to conduct an adequate search of the Central Records System” and requesting
additional information. See Hardy Decl. ^ 7, Ex. B.

4. Manning supplemented her request by letter dated March 18, 2014. See Hardy
Decl. ^ 8, Ex. C. Manning also modified her request to include records “of or relating to the
investigation conducted by . . . the Department of Justice Counterepionage [sic] Section” into
Manning’s disclosures and records “of or relating to the investigation conducted by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and other agencies” into alleged co-conspirators. Hardy Decl. ^ 8, Ex.

C.

5. By letter dated March 21, 2014, the FBI acknowledged receipt of Manning’s
FOIA request and advised her that it was searching its records system for potentially responsive
records. Hardy Decl. ^ 9, Ex. D.

6. By letter dated April 3, 2014, the FBI denied Manning’s request for expedited
processing, explaining its conclusion that the topic of her request was not a matter “in which
there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public confidence.”
Hardy Decl. ^ 10, Ex. E. The FBI also advised Manning that she could appeal this determination
within sixty days from the date of the letter.

7. On April 8, 2014, the FBI conducted an index search of its Central Records
System (“CRS”), which is a comprehensive system that includes administrative, applicant,

2

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-16 Filed 03/15/16 Page 3 of 6

criminal, personnel, and other files compiled for law enforcement purposes. The FBI determined
that its search of the CRS was likely to locate any responsive documents. Hardy Decl. ^ 29, 33.
The FBI searched the CRS for responsive main files records, using a six-way phonetic
breakdown of Manning’s names, including any variations of the first or last. The FBI also used
Manning’s date of birth, place of birth, her description of the relevant investigation and case
number. Hardy Decl. ^ 30. The FBI located potentially responsive investigative records; upon
review and following communications with the Special Agent in charge of the investigation, the
FBI concluded that the records were part of and related to pending enforcement proceedings. Id.

8. The FBI subsequently conducted an additional search for any cross references
responsive to Manning’s request using the same search terms used in its original search. Hardy
Decl. ^ 31. This search of the confirmed the results of the original search for main files and also
identified additional responsive cross references. Review of the cross references revealed that
they are also part of and related to pending enforcement proceedings. Id.

9. The FBI concluded that a separate search for records responsive to the second part
of plaintiff’s request (seeking records about the FBI’s investigation of other individuals involved
in the unauthorized disclosure of classified materials that were published on the WikiLeaks
website) was unnecessary because those records were maintained in the same files containing the
records responsive to the first part of plaintiff’s request (for records about herself). Hardy Decl.

If 32.

10. The FBI determined that disclosure of the responsive records would adversely
affect the FBI’s pending investigation and any resulting prosecutions and that there was no
reasonably segregable information. Hardy Decl. ^ 38-48. The FBI also determined that the

3

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-16 Filed 03/15/16 Page 4 of 6

records may be exempt, in whole or in part, under one or more other FOIA exemptions. Hardy
Decl. ^ 33.

11. By letter dated April 8, 2104, the FBI advised Manning that the information she
requested was located in a pending investigative file exempt from disclosure pursuant to FOIA
Exemption 7(A). The FBI also advised Manning that she could appeal this determination to the
Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy (“OIP”) within sixty days from the date of
the letter. Hardy Decl. ^ 11, Ex. F.

12. By letter dated April 11, 2014, Manning appealed the FBI’s denial of her request
for expedited processing to OIP. Hardy Decl. ^ 12, Attachment G.

13. By letter dated April 17, 2014, Manning appealed the FBI’s denial of her request
pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7(A) to OIP and also challenged the FBI’s failure to address her
request for disclosure of the requested records under the Privacy Act. Hardy Decl. ^ 13, Ex. H.

14. By letter dated April 29, 2014, OIP acknowledged receipt of Manning’s appeal of
the denial of expedited processing and advised Manning it was closing the appeal because the
FBI had already responded to her request, rendering the expedited processing request moot.
Hardy Decl. ^ 14, Ex. I.

15. By letter dated May 7, 2014, OIP acknowledged receipt of Manning’s April 17,
2104 appeal of the FBI’s denial of her request pursuant to Exemption 7(A) and advised her that it
would notify her of its decision as soon as possible. Hardy Decl. ^ 15, Ex. J.

16. By letter dated August 7, 2014, OIP affirmed the FBI’s action on Manning’s
request, determining that the FBI properly denied the request pursuant to Exemption 7(A) and
that the records responsive to the request were exempt from the access provision of the Privacy

4

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-16 Filed 03/15/16 Page 5 of 6

Act. Hardy Decl. ^ 16, Exhibit K. OIP further advised Manning that she could file a lawsuit in
federal district court and/or seek the mediation services of the Office of Government Information
Services (“OGIS”) at the National Archives and Records Administration to resolve her dispute
with the FBI. Id.

17. By letter dated January 5, 2015, Manning requested assistance from OGIS. Hardy
Decl. ^ 17, Ex. L.

18. By letter dated January 16, 2015, OGIS acknowledged receipt of Manning’s
mediation services request. Hardy Decl. ^ 18, Ex. M.

19. By letter dated February 24, 2015, OGIS responded to Manning’s mediation
request and provided additional explanation about the application of Exemption 7(A). Hardy
Decl. ^ 19, Ex. N.

20. Manning filed the instant lawsuit on October 8, 2015. See ECF No. 1
(Complaint).

Dated: March 4, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

BENJAMIN C. MIZER

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

CHANNING D. PHILLIPS
United States Attorney

ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO
Deputy Director

/s/Aimee W. Brown______________

AIMEE W. BROWN (IL Bar No. 6316922)

Trial Attorney

United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
5

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-16 Filed 03/15/16 Page 6 of 6

20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone: (202) 305-0845
Fax:(202)616-8470
Email: Aimee.W.Brown@usdoj.gov

Counsel for Defendants

6

Case 1:15-cv-01654-APM Document 12-17 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHELSEA MANNING,

Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01654-APM

US. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and the
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION,

Defendants.

rPROPOSED! ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Date:

THE HONORABLE AMIT P. MEHTA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

e-Highlighter

Click to send permalink to address bar, or right-click to copy permalink.

Un-highlight all Un-highlight selectionu Highlight selectionh