SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF ALAN W. TATE

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 0001086486
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: June 23, 2015
• Document Release Date: October 13, 2010
• Case Number: F-2010-00465
• Publication Date: May 6, 2004

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
H. RAY LAHR,
Plaintiff,
v. ) No. CV 03-08023-AHM
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY)
BOARD and CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE)
AGENCY,
Defendants.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF ALAN W. TATE
I, ALAN W. TATE, hereby declare and say:
1. I continue to serve as the Acting Chief, Public
Information Programs Division, Information Management Services
(PIPD/IMS), for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA or Agency).
I have held this position since 26 March 2004, at which time I
also became Acting CIA Information and Privacy Coordinator
(Coordinator). This is the second declaration I have submitted
in this case. I respectfully refer the Court to my earlier
Declaration of 16 April 2004. In my capacities as Acting Chief,
IMS/PIPD, and Coordinator, I am responsible for, among other
things, managing the Freedom,of Information Act (FOIA) and
Privacy Act (PA) programs in the CIA.
APPROVED FOR
RELEASE^ DATE:
17-Sep-2010
 2. Through the exercise of my official duties, I am aware
of Plaintiff's Opposition to the CIA's Motion for Stay of
Proceedings, including Plaintiff's assertions regarding CIA's
handling of his earlier request and the alleged relevancy of the
nature and timing of that reply for Defendant's motion to stay
the proceedings now pending before this Court.
3. The purpose of this supplemental declaration is to
describe and distinguish CIA's handling of Plaintiff's earlier
request and to clarify and further explain why the duration of
the stay, as requested by Defendant, is necessary and
reasonable. I also include in my description certain additional
administrative burdens, which appear particularly relevant given
assertions made by plaintiff in his declaration of
29 April 2004.
4. I make the following statements based on my personal
knowledge, information made available to me in my official
capacity, and the conclusions I reached in accordance therewith.
PLAINTIFF'S EARLIER REQUEST AND CIA'S HANDLING THEREOF
5. In Plaintiff's Opposition memorandum, Plaintiff refers
to CIA's handling of an earlier request, as a basis for
asserting that the duration of the stay requested by the
Defendant is excessive. Neither the circumstances surrounding
them nor the requests are the same. Plaintiff states that two-
 and-half years ago the CIA was able to respond to his earlier
request within the twenty-working day limit and today it asks
for another ten months to process the current request. The
handling of the one request has no bearing on the other--
different time, surrounding circumstances, and responses.
6. By letter dated 10 November 2000, Mr. Lahr requested
certain information regarding the TWA 800 accident. After
stating "CIA produced a video which . . . showed the aircraft
losing the whole nose section and then climbing about.3,000
feet," Mr. Lahr indicated that he "would like to review the
process used to arrive at that conclusion. (Italics added.)
Would you please provide me a copy of the computer program and
the data used to produce that computer simulation." By letter
dated 26 January 2001, the CIA acknowledged receipt of Mr.
Lahr's 10 November letter, assigning it reference number F-2000-
02350 for identification purposes. The CIA then went on to
state:
We understand your request to indicate your interest
is focused on the separation of the aircraft's nose
section from the fuselage, and the related data . ..
We. have researched this matter, and have learned that
the pertinent data, and resulting conclusions, were
provided by the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB). CIA simply incorporated the NTSB conclusions
into our videotape.
The letter explained that an agency, who originated information,
has responsibility for making decisions about its release and
 provided in the letter to Mr. Lahr the address of the
appropriate office at NTSB. No further correspondence was
received from Mr. Lahr with respect to this request.
7. When Mr. Lahr's first request was received, it was
assigned to a FOIA officer for administrative review.2 Based on
analysis of the request, CIA interpreted the request as asking
for information relating to the NTSB conclusion regarding the
separation of the nose section from the fuselage. Consequently,
CIA referred Mr..Lahr to the NTSB. Thus, plaintiff's first
request was not formally accepted for search and consequently
did not enter the complex queue. Instead he received a referral
response, which is the reason that he received a relatively
quick response. Whereas, plaintiff's current request is not only
assigned to that queue for search, but will involve an extremely
time-consuming manual search at the individual analyst level (as
opposed to records systems, i.e., database). And, assuming
responsive documents, additional time will be required to review
2Upon receipt of a FOIA request, PIPD personnel review/analyze the request to
ensure that it is a perfected request, i.e., meets applicable legal and
administrative requirements, including "reasonably describes" records, the
record(s)/information sought is within the possession or purview of the
Agency, no fees are owed, etc. Once this has-been established, experienced
personnel in PIPD then search the Management of Officially Released
Information (MORI) database to determine if any prior requests have been
received on the topic and whether information on the subject in question has
been previously reviewed and released by CIA .through its various
declassification programs. If it is determined that records searches are
required, the FOIA officer accepts the request by sending a formal acceptance
letter to the requester and at the same time formally tasks those components
deemed reasonably likely to possess information on the topic with
instructions that a search be made for any responsive records.
 them. As was explained in my earlier Declaration (paragraphs 13-
14), a records search such as the plaintiff's which seeks
underlying information, which is not readily identified,
requires the first-hand knowledge and participation of
individuals who were actually involved in the production of the
CIA animation.
8. The requests are not the same in a key respect. In his
Opposition memorandum, Plaintiff states, "the FOIA requests at
issue here are comparatively few in number and breadth." This
ignores the complex nature of the search and fact that the
Plaintiff's current request is for "all records upon which the
. aircraft flight path climb conclusion was based and the 105
FOIA Requests itemized in the enclosed Excel printout .
(30 pages). A true and correct copy of the 8 October 2003 FOIA
request is attached as Exhibit 1.
THE CIA'S ESTIMATED TIME FOR COMPLETION OF PLAINTIFF'S
FOIA REQUEST
9. As stated in my earlier Declaration, CIA will treat
plaintiff's FOIA request as having been accepted on the date on
which the request was received by CIA's FOIA office -
8 October 2003. At that time, the Agency had over 1,500 FOIA
requests in queue in various stages of processing; of these,
 approximately 865 currently remain ahead of plaintiff's request
in the complex queue.
10. At this time, the CIA has not yet completed its search
for records responsive to plaintiff's request. Until the number
and nature of responsive records are known, I cannot accurately
predict the amount of time required for processing. However,
based on factors discussed in my earlier Declaration, my best
judgment is that the CIA will require 10 months to complete the
processing of Plaintiff's request.
11. As was noted in my earlier Declaration, most of the
information utilized in CIA's analysis of eyewitness accounts
which is presented in the animation is known to have originated
with other government agencies and entities; consequently,
extensive referral and/or coordination will be required. CIA
cannot speak for other agencies nor can we meaningfully consult
with them at this time since the records search is not complete.
Although the Agency does not have control over other agencies'
responses to referrals and coordinations, it is my best estimate
that CIA could complete.all stages of its processing of CIA
documents and respond to Plaintiff within 10 months--that is, by
28 February 2005.
12. At this time, it is impossible to state a date certain
.when a Vaughn index may be completed since neither the volume
 nor nature of responsive records is known. Moreover, by its
very nature--describing information withheld and identifying
applicable exemptions--such an index cannot be completed until
after the substantive review3 of all responsive material has been
completed. For this reason, CIA can only provide an estimated
completion date. I presently estimate that CIA could complete a
Vaughn index within 2-3 months of completing the processing of
CIA-originated documents.
CONCLUSION
13. The CIA is making all reasonable efforts to comply
with the FOIA's requirements and deadlines. Due to the
complicated nature of the Plaintiff's request, the manner and
level of the records search, the nature of potentially
responsive documents, and the careful, multi-step review the CIA
must.conduct to prevent the inadvertent release of classified
national security, or other exempt information, and upon
consideration of what is humanly possible based on the Agency's
current resources, my best estimate is, as stated previously,
that it will require approximately ten months to complete
processing of CIA records and to provide a response to.
Plaintiff.
3 This includes the review to determine if responsive information is currently and properly classified or otherwise
exempt from release under the FOIA.
 14. For the above reasons, the CIA submits this
declaration in further support of Defendant's Motion for Open
America Stay until such time as the CIA has completed processing
Plaintiff's request.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the
United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this day of May 2004.
Alan W. Tate
Acting Chief, Public
Information Programs Division