Luqman Adesola Adejumobi v. National Security

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 18, 2008
No. 08-10286
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-01237-CV-ORL-31-UAM
LUQMAN ADESOLA ADEJUMOBI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
(N.S.A),
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(July 18, 2008)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Luqman Adesola Adejumobi appeals pro se the summary judgment against
his complaint under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the
Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and in favor of the National Security Agency. The
district court concluded that the records sought by Adejumobi were exempt from
the disclosure under the Information Act and the Agency had no records governed
by the Privacy Act that were responsive to Adejumobi’s request. We affirm.
We review a summary judgment de novo. O'Kane v. U.S. Customs Service,
169 F.3d 1308, 1309 (11th Cir. 1999). A summary judgment should be entered
when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
Section 552(a)(3) requires federal agencies, upon any request for records
that reasonably describe documents held by that agency, to make those documents
promptly available to any person. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3). The Information Act
requires agencies to release their records unless the records are protected from
disclosure by a statutory exemption. Arenberg v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 849
F.2d 579, 580 (11th Cir. 1988). The agency bears the burden of establishing that an
exemption applies. Miscavige v. Internal Revenue Service, 2 F.3d 366, 367 (11th
Cir. 1993). An agency ordinarily may discharge its burden by filing a declaration
of a qualified official regarding the factual basis for the conclusion of the agency
that an exemption applies. A declaration by an official about a national security
2
exemption is entitled to “substantial weight,” King v. United States Dep’t of
Justice, 830 F.2d 210, 217 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656
F.2d 724, 737 (D.C. Cir. 1981), but the declaration must offer the “requester a
meaningful opportunity to contest, and the district court an adequate foundation to
review, the soundness of the withholding.” King, 830 F.2d at 218.
In support of its motion for summary judgment, the Agency filed a
declaration of Rhea D. Siers, the Deputy Associate Director for Policy and Records
for the Agency. Siers could neither confirm nor deny the existence of intelligence
records that were responsive to Adejumobi’s request. Siers explained that any
information or records responsive to Adejumobi’s request were withheld based on
two exemptions under the Information Act. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1), (3). The Agency
also explained that it had no records governed by the Privacy Act that were
responsive to Adejumobi’s request.
Adejumobi failed to present any argument or evidence that responded to the
declaration of Siers. Adejumobi instead asserted that he did not want intelligence
records. Adejumobi stated that he wanted judicial records that referred to him.
The district court did not err. The record discloses no genuine issue of
material fact that any information or records responsive to Adejumobi’s request are
exempt from disclosure and that the Agency has no records governed by the
3
Privacy Act that are responsive to Adejumobi’s request. The district court
correctly concluded that the Agency was entitled to a summary judgment against
Adejumobi’s complaint.
The summary judgment in favor of the Agency is
AFFIRMED.
4