Part of a public library containing court papers related to lawsuits involving Scientology in some way. Collected to help lawyers and critics of Scientology in future lawsuits from or against this cult. Please report back if this has been of help, or send new contributions to the collection. Thanks. Andreas Heldal-Lund (heldal@online.no)

                  NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY et al., Defendants.
                                  No. 76-1494.
               United States District Court, District of Columbia.
                                 July 21, 1977.
  Action was brought against the National Security Agency under the Freedom of
 Information Act.  On the NSA's motion for summary judgment, the District Court,
 John Lewis Smith, Jr., J., held that records which would disclose information
 about the nature of the NSA's activities, including its functions, were exempt
 from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
  Motion granted.

 Records or portions thereof which would disclose information about nature of
 National Security Agency's activities, including its functions, were exempt
 from disclosure under Freedom of Information Act.  5 U.S.C.A. s 552(b)(3).
  *632 William A. Dobrovir, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.
  Carol Buehrens, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants.

  JOHN LEWIS SMITH, Jr., District Judge.
  The Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C. seeks an order
 enjoining the National Security Agency (NSA) from withholding information
 pertaining to the church and its founder, L. Ron Hubbard.  After filing its
 Freedom of Information Act request with NSA, plaintiff was informed that NSA
 had no documents concerning either party.  Later plaintiff advised NSA that it
 had learned in other litigation in this Court that NSA had provided sixteen
 documents within the scope of the request to the Central Intelligence Agency.
 With this information, *633 NSA uncovered the sixteen documents but refused
 to disclose them to plaintiff on grounds that they were protected by Exemptions
 1 and 3 to the Act.  Plaintiff subsequently instituted this action, which comes
 before the Court on defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for
 Summary Judgment and plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories.
  Exemption 3 safeguards matter "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 the issue or (B) established particular criteria for
 withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld."  5
 U.S.C. s 552(b)(3).  Norman Boardman, the Information Officer at NSA, states
 that release of any part of the sixteen documents would contravene Section 6 of
 Public Law 86-36, which reads in part:
   "(N)othing in this Act or any other law . . .  shall be construed to require
 the disclosure of the organization or any function of the National Security
 Agency, of any information with respect to the activities thereof, or of the
 names, titles, salaries, or number of persons employed by such agency."  73
 Stat. 64.
  Mr. Boardman insists that "(r)elease of any record or portion thereof would
 disclose information about the nature of NSA's activities including its
 functions."  Plaintiff maintains, however, that Pub.L. 86-36 is not an
 Exemption 3 statute.  Inasmuch as the statute expressly "refers to particular
 types of matters to be withheld," that contention must be rejected and summary
 judgment entered for defendants.  See Kruh v. General Services
 Administration, 421 F.Supp. 965, 967 n.4 (E.D.N.Y.1976).

End of file...