UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79M00467A000400010013-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 23
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 7, 2004
• Sequence Number: 13
• Publication Date: November 23, 1976
• Content Type: COURTFILE

Approve or Release 2004/10/27: CIA-RDP791& 467A000400010013-3
WILLIAM D. KELLER
United States Attorney
FREDERICK M. BROSIO, JR.
Assistant U. S. Attorney
Chief, Civil Division
MICHAEL E. WOLFSON,
Assistant U. S. Attorney
1100 'United States Courthouse
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, Ca. 90012
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
OP COU
olR~N
o
~ S
l/
c~~ ccR,~. 23,x?
er rR,~~. o
~~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SHIRLEY J. SUTHERLAND, )
Plaintiff,
e-,-- ~~ /4' -
V, ) No..CV 76-0947-MML
DIRECTOR H. STUART KNIGHT,
and the UNITED STATES SECRET
SERVICE,
Defendant.
SHIRLEY J. SUTHERLAND,
Plaintiff,
V.0 No. CV 76-0948-MM
DIRECTOR GEORGE BUSH, and
the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY,
Defendant.
SHIRLEY J. SUTHERLAND,
Plaintiff,
v. ) No. CV 76-0949-MM
DIRECTOR CLARENCE M:'`KELLEY,
and the FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION,
.Defendant.
(Continued on Page
~km'
t
IN CAMERA SUBMISSION OF'
WITHHELD DOCUMENTS. AND
MATERIALS
I
/Vo
0
Approved For Release 2004/10/27 : CIA-RDP74MQ0467A000400010-01.3-3
 7
8
9
10
Al
:12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
30
31
32
Approve 1or Release 2004/10/27: CIA-RDP79F467A000400010013-3
SHIRLEY J. SUTHERLAND,
Plaintiff,
V. )
GOMMZSIONER LEONARD F. )
CHAPMAN, and the IMMIGRATION
AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, )
Defendants. )
SHIRLEYJ..SUTHERLAND,
Plaintiff,
DIRECTOR REX D. DAVIS
and the BUREAU OF ALCOHOL,
TOBACCO AND FIREARMS,
Defendants.
No. CV 76-0950-MML
No. CV 76?0951-NML
rder of the Court, filed November 9, 1976, certain
documents, held by the defendant agencies, were ordered to be
submitted to the Court for in camera inspection. In accordance
with said Order, all relevant documents were submitted to the
Court on November 23, 1976, for in camera examination.
Since each of-the five (5) agencies" here involved in-
dependently prepared their required in camera submission, each
has provided the Court with an affidavit which explains what is
contained in their submission, how it is organized for the Court'
review, and that said documents are true and accurate copies of
the materials not disclosed to plaintiff, which the Court has
ordered submitted for in camera inspection. A copy of each of,
the agencies' affidavits is attached hereto as EXHIBITS A through
E.
It should be noted that, pursuant to the Court's Order of
November 9, 1976,.the in camera submission provided by each agency
.covers only the following FOIA exemptions:
2 _
Approved For Release 2004/10/27 : CIA-RDP79M00467A000400010013-3
)t-'.>i
 Approver Release 2004/10/27: CIA-RDP79l 167A000400010013-3
Case No. CV 76-0947-MML (Secret Service):
Exemptions 5 and 7(E);
Case No. CV 76-0948-ML (CIA): Exemption 3;
Case No. CV 76-0949-MML (FBI): Exemptions 5 and 7(E)
Case No. CV 76-0950-MML (I&NS): Exemption 7(E);
Case No. CV 76-0951-MML (ATF) : Exemption 7(E).
Any document and/or piece of information, which was -withheld from
disclosure, pursuant to the assertion of more than one FOIA
? i
exemption, was not included in this in camera submission if-one
or more of the asserted exemptions was found to be valid'by the
Court in its November 9, 1976, Order. In other words, the only
information being here submitted in camera is information as to
which one of the above-listed exemptions is being solely asserted.
as the basis of precluding its disclosure. Information as to
which at least one exemption has already been approved by the
Court has not been submitted for further examination.
Because the documents here involved have been submitted
in their entirety for the Court's examination, defendants respect
fully request that all documents which have been submitted be re-
turned to counsel for defendants when no longer needed by the
Court, unless the Court desires to hold the documents under seal
until completion of this litigation.
DATED: November 23, 1976.
Respectfully submitted,
29
30
31
32
WILLIAM D. KELLER, United States Attorn
FREDERICK M. BROSIO, JR., Asst. U. S.
Attorney, Chief, Civil Division
MICHAEL E. WOLFSON
HICMEL E. WOLFSON
,
Assistant U. S. Attorney
Attorneys for Defendants
Approved For Release 2004/10/27 : CIA-R3DP79M00467A000400010013-3
 r-y
)S ANGELES. CALi
L2 d e ~> }:
4
19
20
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
21
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
22
Having first been duly sworn, Shirley J. Sutherland does
1. I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled action under
26
the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. ?552.
27
2. I am unable for the reasons hereinafter stated to p
resent
by affidavit facts essential to justify my opposition to the
defendants' motion for summary judgment.
3. Said facts essential to justify my opposition are facts
31
concerning the nature of the five documents sought herein,
32
including:
or Release 2004/10/27: CIA-RDP79W04
GARY D. SOWARDS
FRED OKRAND
JILL JAKES
MARK D. ROSENBAUM
ACLU Foundation of Southern California
633 So. Shatto Place
Los Angeles, California 90005
(213) 487-1720
Attorneys for Plaintiff
umu.
All.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT-
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SHIRLEY J. SUTHERLAND, ')
Plaintiff, )
DIRECTOR GEORGE BUSH, and the
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
Defendants .
AFFIDAVIT OF SHIRLEY J.
SUTHERLAND PURSUANT TO
RULE 56(f), FEDERAL RULES
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE; LOCAL
RULE 3(g), IN OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Affidavit of Shirley J. Sutherland Pursuant to Rule 56(f),
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Local Rule 3(g).
NO. CV 76-948-EML
 30
For Release 2004/10/27 : CIA-RDP79W0467A000400010013-3
a. Whether as a result of the search
defendants in fact located only five docu-
ments pertaining to me.
b. Whether each of the five documents
and its contents fits the characterization
and description given by the defendants
and/or is in fact exempt from disclosure
under ?552 (b) .
c. Whether any portion of-the wholly
undisclosed document or any further portion
of the other four documents is in fact
segregable and therefore required by
5 U.S.C. ?552(b) to be disclosed to
plaintiff regardless of whether the rest
of said documents are otherwise exempt from
disclosure.
4. Knowledge of said facts is exclusively or largely.within
and under the control of the defendants in that they have
custody and control of the documents sought in this case and
exclusive knowledge of the circumstances surrounding their
creation or transmission, and in that I have no independent
knowledge of the contents)of or the circumstances surrounding
the creation or transmission of the'said five documents and no
way to gain knowledge of the circumstances or contents of said
documents other than by means of this action.
Executed this 25th day of October, 1976, at
California.
Subscribed and sworn to before
me-this 25th day of October, 1976.
JF /114
Alice R. Fuchs, Notary Public
eeeeeeeeeoeoeeoe >ao:oeoeeeeee
P.2t(:C?r'AL OFF:CE IN
O LOS ANGELES COU`Ity 2 ?
My CL.-.I.m:-s:en Ex;ires t.. mb^_r 4, 1:,79. ?
Los Angeles,
-Approved For Release 2004/10/27 : CIA-RDP79M00467-A000400010013-3
 ._Apprb1jFor F elease 2004%10%27: CIA-RDA D 67AD~ OBII1W~ = `P y
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I, the undersigned, certify that I am a citizen of the
United States, a resident of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, over the age of 18, and not a party to the
within-entitled action; my business address is.63'3 South
Shatto Place, Los Angeles, California 90005.
On October 26,-1976 , I served the within
AFFIDAVIT OF SHIRLEY J. SUTHERLAND PURSUANT TO RULE 56 (f),
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ; LOCAL RULE 3 (g) IN
OPPOSITION TO'DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
addresses shown on said envelopes were as follows:
William D. Keller
United States Attorney
Frederick M. Brosio, Jr.
Assistant U.S. Attorney -
Attn.:Michael E. Wolfson
Assistant U.S. Attorney
United States Courthouse, 11th Fl.
312 North Spring Street'
? ?Los Angeles,. California 90012
on the interested parties in said action or their attorneys by
depositing a copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed -
envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, in a United
States Post Office facility regularly maintained by the Govern-
ment of the United States at Los Angeles, California, addressed
to each of said parties or their attorneys:; that the names and
I am ngg&XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXY a member of the
bar of this Court, and a member of the State Bar of California.,
Executed at Los Angeles, California,
Gary D. Sowards
 -16
17
18
19
21
4ppra or Release 004~'i Of27 CIA-RDP71
A ! O Z-EY
_' c S 1
GARY D. SOWARDS
FRED OKRAND
JILL JAKES
MARK D. ROSENBAUM
ACLU Foundation of
Southern California
633 South Shatto Place
Los Angeles, California 90005
(213) 487-1720
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED.STATES DISTRICT COURT'
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SHIRLEY J. SUTHERLAND,
Plaintiff ,
DIRECTOR GEORGE BUSH, and the
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
0467A0004000100 U-3'
S. Att-)rnet
:,jet lss:Stant
tliitia`
t!"Ttll. - -
:"ns?.dgr rt
.T
NO. CV 76-0948-MML
)
PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT
OF GENUINE ISSUES
)
Plaintiff herewith submits, pursuant to Local Rule 3(g)(2),
the following Statement of Genuine Issues in opposition to
defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
Statement of Genuine Issues
1. Whether in fact as a result of their search defendants
located only five documents pertaining to plaintiff, to wit:
Memorandum for Headquarters, dated 3 October 1969 (hereinafter,
"Document Number 1"), Intelligence Report, dated 9 October 1969
(hereinafter, "Document Number 2), Cable to Headquarters,. dated
20 September 1971 (hereinafter, "Document Number 3"), Cable to
Headquarters, dated 24 September 1971 (hereinafter, "Document -
Number 4"), Intelligence Report, dated June 1972 -hereinafter
"Document Number 5").
///
 Appro For Release 2004/10/27: CIA-RDP7*0467A000400010013-3
9
12
24
32
2. Whether each of the five documents sought herein and
its contents or a portion-thereof fits the description of it
given by the defendants and/or is in fact exempt from disclosure {
under 5 U.S.C. ?552(b).
3. Whether each of the uncleared portions of the documents
described by defendants as Document Numbers 1, 2 and 5 does {
in fact contain information which reveals intelligence sources
and methods in need of continued protection. . I
4. Whether nondisclosure of each of,the unreleased portions.
of Documents Numbers 1, 2 and 5 is-An fact necessary to protect
{
information concerning CIA organization-procedures, names,
{
official titles, and numbers of personnel employed by the Agency.
5. Whether the disclosure of each of the unreleased portions
of Document Numbers 1, 2 and 5 would in fact constitute a clearly
I
unwarranted invasion of the right to personal privacy of indivi-
duals named therein.
6. Whether the disclosure of each of the unrelased portions-
of Documents Numbers 1, 2 and 5 would in fact breach express
guarantees of confidentiality and/or subject sources of informa-
tion to harassment or retaliation.
7. Whether the nondisclosure of each of the unreleased
portions of Document Numbers 1, 2 and 5 is in fact necessary
to protect the identity of a confidential source who is in
tive or unique position.
a sensi
8. Whether the disclosure of each of the unreleased por-
tions of Documents'Numbers 1, 2 and 5, would in fact reveal
"intelligence sources and methods" within the meaning of
50 U.S.C. ?403 (d) (3) .
9. Whether the disclosure of each of the unreleased por-
tions of Document Numbers 1, 2 and 5 would be-in fact "unauthori--
zed" within the meaning of 50 U.S.C. ?403(d)(3).
10. Whether any further portion of Documents Numbers 1, 2
 Appro For Release 2004/10/27 : CIA-RDP7 0467A000400010013-3
32
and 5 is in fact reasonably segregable and therefore required
by 5 U.S.C. ?552(b) to be disclosed to plaintiff regardless of
whether the rest of said documents are otherwise exempt from
disclosure.
11. Whether Document Number 3 is in fact_.properly classi-
fied pursuant to the procedural and substantive criteria of
Executive Order 11652 and the National Security Council Direct-
ive governing-the classification, downgrading, declassification
and safeguarding of National Security,Information, 37 Fed. Reg.
10053 (May 19, 1972).
12. Whether the release of Document No. 3 would in fact
reveal the intelligence sources and methods whereby the informa-
tion contained therein was secured.
13. Whether the disclosure of the information contained
within Document Number 3 and upon the basis of which defendants
deny its release pursuant to ?552(b)(6) would in fact clearly
constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
e
14. Whether each of the unrelased portions of Document
Number 4 is in fact properly classified pursuant to the proce-
dural and substantive criteria of Executive Order 11652 and
the National Security Council Directive governing the Classifi-
cation, Downgrading, Declassification and Safeguarding of
National Security Information, 37 Fed. Reg. 10053 (May 19, 1972).
15. Whether each of the portions of Document Number 4
excised by defendants pursuant to ?552(b)(3) in fact contains
and/or would reveal the organization, function, procedures,
names, titles and number of personnel employed by the Agency.
16. Whether the release of each portion of Document
Number 4 excised by defendants pursuant to ?552(b)(6) in fact
would clearly constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.
///
 Appro For Release 2004/10/27: CIA-RDP7W0467A000400010013-3
18
.19
30
32
17. Whether the disclosure of Document 3 or each of the
portions of Document 4 excised by defendants would in fact
reveal the location of a CIA field installation abroad, the
fact that the CIA conducts intelligence operations in a given
foreign country and/or reveal the identity of a sensitive intelli-
gence source in a given foreign country.
18. Whether the location of the said field installation
abroad, the said fact of CIA intelligence operations in a given
foreign country and/or the identity of said intelligence source
has not already been acknowledged by the United States or other-
wise disclosed.
19. Whether any portion of Document 3 or any further
portion*of Document 4 is in fact reasonably segregable and
therefore required by 5 U.S.C. ?552(b) to be disclosed to plain-
tiff regardless of whether the rest of said documents are
otherwise exempt from disclosure.
DATED: October 25, 1976.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary D. Sowards
Attorney for Plaintiff
.Approved For Release 2004/10/27: CIA-RDP.79M00467A000400010013-3
 ' Appro For Release 2004/10/27 CIA-RDP79"0~467A000400010013-3-
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I, the undersigned, certify that I am a citizen of the
United States, a resident of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, over the age of 18, and1not a party to the
within-entitled action; my business address is 633 South
Z atto Place, Los Angeles, California 90005.
On October 26, 1976 , I served the within
PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES
to each of said parties or their-attorneys; that the names and
addresses shown on said envelopes were as follows:
on the interested parties in said action or their attorneys by
depositing a copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed
envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, in a United
States Post Office facility regularly maintained by the Govern-
ment of the. United States at Los Angeles, California, addressed
William D. Keller
United Stat ec..At~'-orn.?
? -Frederick M Brosio?, Jr.
Assistant U.S.Attorney
o:: =? .:Michael E. Wolfson -
Assistant U.S. Attorney
United States Courthouse, 11th Fl.
iv~ 312' North Spring Street -
Los Angeles, California 90012
I am ~ ggBXZ2X2Z ~3gggggaSgg~ a member of the
bar of this Court, and a member of the State Bar of California,
~~il-X ~~~ X '
Executed at Los Angeles, California, on October 26, 1976
Gary D. Sowards
-Approved For Release 2004/10127 : C.IA=RDP79M00467AO00400010013-3 ,.
 -AIppr
jFor Balsa e-20041=7' VA-RDP-/MD46TA00(Y40_0_0 MY-3
WILLIAM D. KELLER
United States Attorney
FREDERICK M. BROSIO, JR.
Assistant U. S. Attorney
Chief, Civil Division
1ICHAE L E. [?: OLF S JNN
Assistant United States Attorney
1100 United States Courthouse
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, Ca. 90012
Telephone: [phone]
0 1~1 t2,7 -,67 -a
S 0Is ! 1: n?: :r.
C~S?K. U ro! T c- r'
c.~iT4A! ~ta?? c~s~,
51
Attorneys for..Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SHIRLEY J. SUTHERLAND, )
Plaintiff)
DIRECTOR H. STUART KNIGHT;
DI~tECTOR GEORGE BUSH;
DIRECTOR CLARENCE M. KELLEY;
COMNISSION1E LE3NARD CHAPM N;
DIRECTOR REX D. DAVIS etc.,
et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV 76-947-NML
CV 76-948-1-L/
CV 76-949-MML
CV 76-950-MM rL
CV 76-951-N21NL
REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On or about October 26, 1976, plaintiff filed with the
Court, in the above-referenced actions, affidavits in opposition
to defendants' motions for summary judgment. In her opposition
affidavits, plaintiff cites neither a factual basis nor a legal
basis for her opposition. She states simply that, since the
defendants hold all the documents involved in these actions,
she neither knows, nor can know, the contents thereof and thus
cannot effectively oppose defendants' motions. Plaintiff's
argument is not only entirely without merit, it constitutes
a facetious attempt to have the Court litigate these actions
without plaintiff having met the minimum standards of legal
advocacy. In point of fact, plaintiff has not advocated her
case at all, and defendants, therefore, assert that their motions
for rum= ary ;ud =t?:ent st; n.1 as much. unopposed as they would have
r