From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McGehee v. Central Intelligence Agency

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Jun 24, 1983
711 F.2d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 1983)

Summary

vacating separate part of opinion

Summary of this case from Eddington v. United States Dep't of Def.

Opinion

No. 82-1096.

June 24, 1983.

John F. Cordes, Atty., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., with whom Leonard Schaitman, Atty. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., and Stanley S. Harris, U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., were on the petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc, for appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C.Civil Action No. 80-2997).

On Petition for Rehearing

Before WRIGHT, EDWARDS and BORK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court PER CURIAM.


This appeal was decided on January 4, 1983 and reported at 697 F.2d 1095. The CIA has submitted a petition for rehearing, requesting reconsideration of the rulings set forth in Parts III and IV of our opinion, 697 F.2d at 1105-12, 1112-14. We are persuaded by the agency's argument that it has not acted in "bad faith" in processing McGehee's request for documents. Accordingly, we hereby grant the petition for rehearing and vacate Part IV of the opinion. Finding no reason any longer to doubt the credibility of the agency's affidavits, we approve the District Court's determination that the CIA adequately demonstrated that exemptions 1 and 3 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(1), (3) (1976), entitle it to withhold, in whole or in part, 44 documents responsive to McGehee's claim, and we affirm the court's grant of summary judgment to the agency insofar as it pertains to those documents. All other aspects of our original opinion are reaffirmed.

So ordered.


Summaries of

McGehee v. Central Intelligence Agency

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Jun 24, 1983
711 F.2d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 1983)

vacating separate part of opinion

Summary of this case from Eddington v. United States Dep't of Def.

identifying special policy considerations — applicable only to certain types of documents — underlying prior decisions that have suggested that possession alone is insufficient to establish that an agency has "obtained" a document

Summary of this case from Wolfe v. Department of Health Human Serv
Case details for

McGehee v. Central Intelligence Agency

Case Details

Full title:FIELDING M. McGEHEE, III, APPELLANT v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Jun 24, 1983

Citations

711 F.2d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 1983)

Citing Cases

Wolfe v. Department of Health Human Serv

(Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). See McGehee v. CIA, 697 F.2d 1095, 1105 (D.C. Cir.…

Marzen v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human

FOIA itself does not define the phrase "agency records," and the legislative history does not provide…