Unpublished Dispositionpaul Hoch, Appellant, v. Central Intelligence Agency, 907 F.2d 1227 (D.C. Cir. 1990)

This case occasions no need for a published opinion. See D.C. Cir. Rule 14(c). It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the decision of the district court is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the attached memorandum.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C. Cir. Rule 15.

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Paul Hoch, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),¹  persists in his quest for copies of CIA records pertaining to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. In response to Hoch's FOIA requests, the CIA released 198 documents, totaling 808 pages,²  but withheld, in part or entirely, documents that fell "in one or both of the following categories: (a) intelligence activities, sources and methods ... and/or (b) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States."³  The CIA invoked Exemptions 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 in withholding these documents,⁴  and the District Court entered summary judgment in favor of the agency on most issues.⁵  On appeal, Hoch renews many of the challenges he made in District Court.⁶  We find no reason to disturb the District Court's conclusions, and affirm largely for the reasons stated in the District Court's opinion and supplemental order.⁷  We do, however, find cause to elaborate on the District Court's permitting the CIA to withhold parts of Document No. 1648-452-C (Document 1648).⁸  Hoch argues that the entire document should be released since the information in the withheld parts has already been revealed by congressional committees and the media. We disagree.

As an initial matter, we can ignore the contents of the media sources, as clear precedent establishes that courts will not compel the CIA to disclose information even though it has been the subject of media reports and speculation.⁹  Media sources are disregarded on two theories. First, absent official confirmation, some doubt always remains no matter how accurate and trustworthy the media may seem.¹⁰  Second, even when all parties are absolutely certain of the facts, official confirmation could have adverse diplomatic consequences.¹¹ 

We cannot so easily disregard the disclosures by congressional committees.¹²  As Hoch notes, in Fitzgibbon v. CIA,¹³  the district court held that such disclosures are official because the CIA cannot have "greater official status as an arm of the United States government than the United States Senate."¹⁴  This circuit has never squarely ruled on this issue, but we need not do so to decide this case. The disclosures by the congressional committees did not purport to be official acknowledgements as to any of the information Hoch seeks.

The CIA has resisted disclosing the deleted parts of Document 1648 on the grounds that the information could identify confidential sources or methods.¹⁵  The context of the deletions within Document 1648 indicates that the dispute is primarily over the name of "a man highly placed in the Castro government."¹⁶  In fact, however, the Senate Report never revealed the identity of any such CIA Cuban source and the House Report made crystal clear that the committee could not determine the identity either.¹⁷  Thus nothing in the record of congressional disclosures, even if they were treated as official, undermines the basis for withholding the redacted words and phrases.

* * *

* * *

The judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.