Documents / Document

Kean v. NASA, 1:03-cv-02509

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (govinfo) · 21 pages · text from the file's own layer

This memorandum opinion by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, dated March 27, 2007, rules in Leslie Kean's FOIA suit against NASA over records about the object said to have crashed in Kecksburg, Pennsylvania on December 9, 1965. The court found NASA had not shown its searches were adequate and noted likely overlooked Cosmos 96 records. It upheld NASA's withholding of two emails under Exemption 5 and ordered the parties to propose new search procedures.

  • p. 7 …at 19 (email response from Marietta Anderson). Based on these responses, McConnell would later declare that…
8
In addition to the distributed searches at the NASA
Headquarters and Centers, nineteen boxes of archived information
were sought from the Washington National Record Center, based on
the accession numbers provided by plaintiff. Three of those
boxes were reported as having been missing for quite some time.
See 2d McConnell Decl., ¶¶ 20-22, Ex. 2. According to NASA, the
remaining sixteen boxes were searched but were found to contain
no responsive documents. Id. Initially, plaintiff argued that
NASA had provided no documentation regarding any efforts to
locate the missing boxes. Defendant, however, has provided
supplemental declarations that state that efforts were made to
locate the missing documents. See 2d Stockman Decl. ¶ 3 (stating
that NASA requested search for missing boxes at Records Center);
4th McConnell Decl. ¶ 7 (stating that NASA searched likely places
for missing boxes).
Responsive documents were located by NASA’s third search at
the Centers and Headquarters. These documents are listed in the
Vaughn Index submitted by defendant. See 1st McConnell Decl.,
Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Attach. 4, at Ex. 1. Defendant claimed
that all responsive documents were turned over to plaintiff, with
the exception of two emails withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemption
5, and certain redacted personal information that otherwise would
have been an unwarranted invasion of privacy pursuant to FOIA
Exemption 6.
Case 1:03-cv-02509-EGS Document 45 Filed 03/27/07 Page 8 of 21

About this file

Document, cited by the archive. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. 21 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.