In this case, the ACLU represented plaintiff Alan Ramo, who, in April of 1976 filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for release of information about him held by both the FBI and the Naval Intelligence Service (NIS). The defendants allege that they collected this information for reasons of "internal and military security." Plaintiff alleges that these actions constitute general surveillance. Information released to the plaintiff included excisions, which these agencies assert was to protect others named in the documents. Over the two years following the start of the case, the agencies claim that they released more information as it was uncovered, though they also began to release some of the information that had been excised. Concerning the validity of these excisions, the agencies invoked invoked section 552(b) (7) (C) and (D). These sections "exempt from the statute's disclosure requirements investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and that would disclose the identity of a confidential source," though the plaintiff alleges that these provisions were improperly relied upon.

Numerous facets of the case were examined, with the most hotly contested one being the reason for the collection of information about the plaintiff. The court found that "the NIS did have the authority to investigate plaintiff and his associates." They also found that "the FBI had a law enforcement purpose when it investigated plaintiff."

In 1979, the court granted a motion for partial consideration, specifically concerning the FBI's "see reference" documents, and advised the plaintiff to file a supplemental request for this information, with which the FBI complied.