CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff,
                                       v.
                      William E. SIMON et al., Defendants.
                              Civ. A. No. 76-1719.
               United States District Court, District of Columbia.
                                 July 15, 1977.
  Church, sued under Freedom of Information Act to obtain from Treasury
 Department's office of the assistant secretary for enforcement, operations, and
 tariff claims, Office of General Counsel, and the United States Secret Service
 records in their possession pertaining to the church, its founders, and the
 subject of scientology.  On defendants' motion for summary judgment, the
 District Court, John Lewis Smith, Jr., J., held that documents sought by
 plaintiffs fell within the penumbra of agency's "executive" privilege
 which exempts from FOIA the decision-making processes of government agencies.
  Motion granted.

 RECORDS
 Documents sought by church from Treasury Department's office of assistant
 secretary for enforcement, operations, and tariff claims, Office of General
 Counsel, and United States Secret Service, pertaining to church, its founder
 and subject of scientology, came within penumbra of agency's executive
 privilege which exempts from FOIA the decision-making processes of government
 agencies.  5 U.S.C.A. s 552(b)(5).
  *1108 Samuel H. Seymour, Robert A. Seefried, Walter G. Birkel, Jr.,
 Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
  Carol Buehrens, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendants.
                                     OPINION

  JOHN LEWIS SMITH, Jr., District Judge.
  In this Freedom of Information Act case, the Church of Scientology of
 California seeks from the Treasury Department's Office of the Assistant
 Secretary for Enforcement, Operations, and Tariff Claims (EOTA), Office of
 General Counsel, and the U.S. Secret Service records in their possession
 pertaining to the Church, its founder L. Ron Hubbard, and the subject of
 scientology in general.  Defendants are the U.S. Treasury, the U.S. Secret
 Service, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of Secret Service.
 The matter comes before the Court on defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
 and plaintiff's Motion to Compel.
  Plaintiff's initial request for records was made to the Treasury Department
 and its component agencies on December 19, 1974.  By the time the complaint
 instituting this action was filed, one hundred forty-five documents had been
 identified to the request.  Of these, ninety-six had been surrendered.  The
 remaining forty-nine were being withheld under the aegis of Exemption 5 to the
 Act, 5 U.S.C. s 552(b)(5), which protects "inter-agency or intra-agency
 memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party . . .  in
 litigation with the agency".  On April 19, 1977, plaintiff advised the
 government that "in the spirit of reasonableness and compromise" it was
 withdrawing its request to all but twenty of the documents.  However, plaintiff
 noted that the Secret Service had acknowledged in its answers to
 interrogatories that it had not searched for the requested records through the
 Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS).  Plaintiff asked that such a
 search be completed. [FN1]  On May 13, the government turned over the complete
 text of ten of the twenty, and the partial text of three more.

      FN1. The Secret Service does not have terminal facilities allowing it
     direct access to TECS and is not a user of the system.  Consequently, any
     request for records in the system should be directed to the Department of
     Customs, which administers TECS.

  Eight of the ten documents remaining in dispute are from EOTA.  James
 Featherstone, Deputy Assistant Secretary for EOTA, [FN2] describes them as
 follows:

      FN2. Referring to dictum in a 1952 Supreme Court decision that only the
     head of an agency may invoke executive privilege, plaintiff urges that Mr.
     Featherstone's affidavit is insufficient.  See Reynolds v. United
     States, 345 U.S. 1, 73 S.Ct. 528, 97 L.Ed. 727 (1952).  See also, Carl
     Zeiss Stiftung v. V.E.B. Carl Zeiss, Jena, 40 F.R.D. 318 (D.D.C.1966),
     aff'd 128 U.S.App.D.C. 10, 384 F.2d 979, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 952,
     88 S.Ct. 334, 19 L.Ed.2d 361 (1967).  That language is not pertinent here.
     The courts have recognized several aspects to executive privilege.  See, e.
     g., Reynolds v. United States, supra; Environmental Protection Agency
     v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 93 S.Ct. 827, 35 L.Ed.2d 119 (1973); Senate Select
     Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 162 U.S.App.D.C.
     183, 498 F.2d 725 (D.C.Cir.1975); Ethyl Corporation v. Environmental
     Protection Agency, 478 F.2d 47 (4th Cir. 1973).  In light of the many FOIA
     cases filed each year, court adherence to the Reynolds dictum in cases not
     dealing with the constitutional facet of the privilege would impose on
     agency heads a tremendous burden.  Reynolds does not require such a result,
     and common sense prohibits it.

   *1109 "1. One page memorandum dated February 20, 1975, from the Office of
 the Assistant Secretary (EOTA) to the Chief of the U.S. National Central Bureau
 of Interpol.  It is an intra-agency memorandum discussing and expressing
 opinions concerning Treasury appropriation hearings and Interpol and neither
 makes reference to nor discusses plaintiff.
   "2. Two page memorandum dated January 15, 1975, from an EOTA official to the
 Assistant Secretary.  It is an intra-agency memorandum discussing opinions and
 setting forth EOTA staff recommendations concerning a Church of Scientology
 Freedom of Information Act appeal to the Secret Service.
   "3. One page memorandum dated February 10, 1975, from an EOTA official to the
 Assistant Secretary.  It is an intra-agency memorandum containing advice and a
 recommendation regarding a Church of Scientology Freedom of Information Act
 appeal to the Secret Service.
   "4. Two and one-half pages of undated intra-agency notes containing
 deliberative internal working papers of an EOTA attorney-official regarding
 possible advice and recommendations to the Interpol Washington National Central
 Bureau concerning a Church of Scientology Freedom of Information Act request.
   "5. One and a quarter page memorandum dated October 1, 1974, from a staff
 officer of EOTA to the Chief, Interpol Washington National Central Bureau.  It
 is an intra-agency memorandum consisting of advice and recommendations on
 possible courses of action and to defend that Office against disparagement.
   "6. Two page memorandum dated April 23, 1974 from an attorney-staff officer
 of EOTA to the Chief, Interpol Washington National Central Bureau.  The intra-
 agency memorandum consists of advice and recommendations on possible courses of
 action in internal policy and administrative matters.
   "7. The majority of this document has been released.  It is a three-page
 intra-agency memorandum dated December 13, 1973, concerning a telephone
 conversation with David A. Splitt, attorney for L. Ron Hubbard, concerning his
 Freedom of Information Act request.  The last two paragraphs of the memorandum
 contain the staff member's advice, opinions and recommendations concerning the
 request by Mr. Splitt and have been deleted.
   "8. An intra-agency routing slip dated September 30, 1974, has been furnished
 to the plaintiff.  Deleted from that routing slip is a handwritten note by the
 initiating officer which involved internal deliberations on possible courses of
 action concerning a Freedom of Information Act appeal by the Church of
 Scientology."
  The other two documents are described in the affidavit of Hugo Ranta, [FN3]
 Assistant General Counsel, from whose office they emanate.

      FN3. See footnote 2, supra.

   "1. One page memorandum of the file dated January 15, 1975.  All but the
 first two sentences of this memorandum have been deleted.  The memorandum was
 written by an attorney in the Office of the General Counsel and concerns the
 response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the Church of Scientology
 to the Secret Service.  The memorandum contains opinions and advice as to the
 response to the request.
   "2. A Department of the Treasury internal buck slip dated August 29, 1974,
 concerning an FOIA request from Joel Kreiner on behalf of the Church of
 Scientology.  The buck slip is from a Treasury Department official to an
 attorney in the Office of the General Counsel and contains opinions and
 requests legal advice as to the processing of the request."
  Essentially, Exemption 5 protects "those documents, and only those documents,
 normally privileged in the civil discovery context."  NLRB v. Sears,
 Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 149, 95 S.Ct. 1504, 1515, 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975).
 See EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 93 *1110 S.Ct. 827, 35 L.Ed.2d 119 (1973).
 As described in the affidavits, each of the ten documents fall within the
 penumbra of the agency's "executive" privilege, which, as noted by the Supreme
 Court in the Sears, Roebuck case, exempts from FOIA the "decisionmaking
 processes of government agencies."  421 U.S. at 150, 95 S.Ct. 1504.  Chief
 Judge Bazelon has written that Exemption 5 "was intended to encourage the free
 exchange of ideas during the process of deliberation and policy-making;
 accordingly, it has been held to protect internal communications consisting of
 advice, recommendations, opinions, and other material reflecting deliberative
 or policy-making processes . . . ."  Soucie v. David, 145 U.S.App.D.C. 144,
 448 F.2d 1067, 1077 (1971).  Release of the documents disputed here would
 frustrate those objectives.  Accordingly, summary judgment will be entered for
 defendants.