REGGIE B. WALTON, District Judge.
The plaintiff, Prison Legal News, filed this Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2006), action in 2005. Currently before the Court are the Plaintiff's Fifth Motion for Summary Judgment ("Pl.'s Mot.") and the Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to the Plaintiffs Fifth Motion for Summary Judgment ("Def.'s Mot."). For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant the defendant's motion, and deny the plaintiff's motion.
The following facts are undisputed.
Pl.'s Facts ¶ 2. The defendant "produced approximately 11,000 pages in response to [the plaintiffs] FOIA request. 8,468 pages were produced without redaction and 2,993 pages were released with redactions." Id. ¶ 4. As outlined in prior memorandum opinions and orders issued by this Court in this litigation, the defendant provided numerous affidavits, declarations, and Vaughn indices
Following the issuances of the above referenced memorandum opinions and orders, the defendant produced a new Vaughn index in May 2011. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 10. The plaintiff again "moved for summary judgment..., asserting that the supplemental Vaughn index did not sufficiently justify the redactions." Id. ¶ 11. In support of its position, the plaintiff noted that "[i]n approximately 2,000 of the 11,000 documents produced to Plaintiffs, Defendant redacted all personal names, judicial and administrative case numbers, and large blocks of text." Id. In response to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, the defendant provided the plaintiff "with newly redacted Exhibits 1 through 102 and a 129-page Second Supplemental Vaughn index on or about November 30, 2011." Id. ¶ 12. The newly redacted documents "still contain[ed] redactions of individual names, job titles, department descriptions, work addresses, dates of employment, dates of events, ... and occasionally, entire sentences of text." Id. ¶ 13; Def.'s Fact Resp. at 1.
The parties have now filed cross motions for summary judgment. In conjunction with its motion, the defendant has submitted supplemental declarations and exhibits that it believes demonstrate that it correctly relied upon FOIA exemptions in redacting the 102 documents that remain at issue.
A court reviews an agency's response to a FOIA request de novo, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), and "FOIA cases typically and appropriately are decided on motions for summary judgment," ViroPharma Inc. v. HHS, 839 F.Supp.2d 184, 189 (D.D.C.2012) (citations omitted). The Court will grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). More specifically, in a FOIA action to compel production of agency records, the agency "is entitled to summary judgment if no material facts are in dispute and if it demonstrates `that each document that falls within the class requested either has been produced ... or is wholly exempt from the [FOIA's] inspection requirements.'" Students Against Genocide v. U.S. Dep't of State, 257 F.3d 828, 833 (D.C.Cir.2001) (quoting Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339, 352 (D.C.Cir.1978)). "To successfully challenge an agency's showing that it complied with the FOIA, the plaintiff must come forward with `specific facts' demonstrating that there is a genuine issue with respect to whether the agency has improperly withheld extant agency records." Span v. DOJ, 696 F.Supp.2d 113, 119 (D.D.C.2010) (quoting DOJ v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 142, 109 S.Ct. 2841, 106 L.Ed.2d 112 (1989)).
Summary judgment in a FOIA case may be based solely on information provided in an agency's supporting affidavits or declarations if they are "relatively detailed and non-conclusory," SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C.Cir.1991) (internal quotations and citations omitted), and when they:
Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C.Cir.1981); see Beltranena v. Clinton, 770 F.Supp.2d 175, 181-82 (D.D.C.2011). In determining whether the defendant agency has met its burden in support of non-production, "the underlying facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the [FOIA] requester." Weisberg v. DOJ, 705 F.2d 1344, 1350 (D.C.Cir.1983). Further, consistent with congressional intent tilting the scales in favor of full disclosure, courts impose a substantial burden on an agency seeking to avoid disclosure based on the FOIA exemptions. Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108, 1114 (D.C.Cir.2007). Consequently, "exemptions from disclosure must be narrowly construed ... and conclusory and generalized allegations of exemptions are unacceptable." Id. at 1114-15 (citing Founding Church of Scientology of Wash., D.C., Inc. v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, 610 F.2d 824, 830 (D.C.Cir.1979)) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Nonetheless, "[w]hen disclosure touches upon certain areas defined in the exemptions,... the [FOIA] recognizes limitations that compete with the general interest in disclosure, and that, in appropriate cases, can overcome it." Nat'l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 172, 124 S.Ct. 1570, 158 L.Ed.2d 319 (2004).
The defendant asserts, see Def.'s Mem. at 2-3, and the plaintiff does not dispute, see generally Pl.'s Reply, that
Def.'s Mem. at 2-3.
The FOIA requires government agencies to release records to the public on request, see generally 5 U.S.C. § 552(a), except for those records protected by any of nine enumerated exemptions, see § 552(b). The defendant's updated Vaughn index indicates that the defendants applied both § 552(b)(6) ("Exemption 6") and § 552(b)(7)(C) ("Exemption 7(C)") to each of the documents at issue.
Exemption 6 protects "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." § 552(b)(6). The term "similar files" is construed broadly and is "`intended
Here, the requested information consists of individuals' names and personal identifying information. Pl.'s Reply at 3; Def.'s Mem. at 2-3 (describing requested records as documents concerning "person[s] related to claims filed with the Defendant pursuant" to various statutes). Accordingly, the records are subject to Exemption 6. See Salas v. Office of Inspector Gen., 577 F.Supp.2d 105, 111 (D.D.C. 2008) (finding that a "Complaint Form `concerning] an allegation of work-related misconduct,' and includ[ing] such information as names, social security numbers, and dates of birth of the complainant and the subject" met the Exemption 6 threshold as "personnel, medical, or similar file[s]" (citation omitted)).
Once this threshold inquiry is met, the Court employs a balancing test to determine whether release of such information constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. See Wash. Post Co. v. HHS, 690 F.2d 252, 260 (D.C.Cir.1982). It is the requester's obligation to demonstrate the existence of a significant public interest in disclosure. See Coleman v. Lappin (Coleman II), 680 F.Supp.2d 192, 196 (D.D.C.2010).
The defendant relied on Exemption 6 to withhold "the names and personal identifying information that would reveal the identity of a person related to claims filed with the [d]efendant pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and claims filed against the defendant related to [the] Equal [Employment] Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or Merit System Protection Board." Def.'s Mem., Stroble Decl. ¶ 6; see generally id., Stroble Vaughn Index; id., Fourth Moorer Decl. The plaintiff argues that the "[d]efendant has failed to... establish that the release of the names would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Pl.'s Mem. at 14. However, with respect to the FTCA claims, the defendant considered the fact that disclosing names or other personal identifying information "would specifically disclose injuries, death or losses suffered by individuals." Def.'s Mem., Fourth Moorer Decl. ¶ 11. The defendant conducted a similar analysis with respect to documents and information related to EEOC claims and Merit System Protection Board claims, observing that "[t]he fact that a claim was filed discloses that a specified individual has alleged that he or she suffered some form of discrimination." Id., Fourth Moorer Decl. ¶¶ 79, 102. Documents
The plaintiff contends that the defendant "has controverted its own justifications by revealing the names of individuals in the majority of the cases from which documents have been released and redacting the names from only a portion of similar documents." Pl.'s Mem. at 14-15. However, the defendant states that "if an administrative complaint resulted in litigation in the United States District Court and [the] [d]efendant was able to connect the administrative complaint with litigation filed in the United States District Court, the information from the administrative complaint was not redacted." Def.'s Mem. at 7; see also id., Fourth Moorer Decl. ¶¶ 57-58 (indicating that only social security numbers and personal banking routing or account numbers were redacted with respect to documents associated with cases filed in a United States District Court). Accordingly, the fact that the defendant did not redact names from all of the documents does not undermine its reliance on Exemption 6.
The plaintiff first states that there is a public interest in disclosing the names and identifying information because without them, "records from administrative agency proceedings lose most of their analytical use" and individuals reviewing the records would be unable to identify "complementary records that would yield even more information by searching for documents based on the names of the parties involved." Pl.'s Mem. at 13-14.
While there may be a public interest in being able to more easily identify complementary records, the District of Columbia Circuit has held that "[t]he operative inquiry in determining whether disclosure of a document implicating privacy issues is warranted is the nature of the requested document itself, not the purpose for which the document is being requested." Judicial Watch, Inc. v. DOJ, 365 F.3d at 1126 (citing Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 773, 109 S.Ct. 1468); see also Reed v. NLRB, 927 F.2d 1249, 1252 (D.C.Cir. 1991). As the Circuit recently observed, "[t]he single relevant public interest in FOIA balancing is the `extent to which disclosure of the information sought would she[d] light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties or otherwise let citizens know what their government is up to.'" Consumers' Checkbook Ctr. for the Study of Servs. v. HHS, 554 F.3d 1046, 1059 (D.C.Cir.2009) (alteration in original)
The plaintiff also states that there is a public interest "in knowing how much money was used to settle claims against [the defendant's] employees and officials." Pl.'s Reply at 9. The plaintiff states further that, "[w]ithout the identifying information from these 102 documents, there is no way to know whether those individuals have been accused multiple times of serious offenses, how much tax payer money has been used to resolve claims against those individuals, and whether those individuals continue to be employed by [the defendant]." Id.
Although "the public may have an interest in knowing that a government investigation itself is comprehensive, that the report of an investigation released publicly is accurate, that any disciplinary measures imposed are adequate, and that those who are accountable are dealt with in an appropriate manner," such "public interests ... would not be satiated in any way by the release of the names" of the employees. Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 92 (D.C.Cir. 1984).
The defendant here has disclosed the names of individuals who were acting in their official capacities, see, e.g., Def.'s Mem., Fourth Moorer Decl. ¶¶ 11, 34, 67, as well as the names of individuals who were involved in public litigation, id. at 7; see also id., Fourth Moorer Decl. ¶¶ 57-58. The requested information thus consists entirely of the names and other personal identifying information, Pl.'s Mem. at 3, of individuals who were not acting in an official capacity, Def.'s Mem., Fourth Moorer Decl. ¶¶ 11, 34, 67. The plaintiff has identified no well-publicized scandal or other information, such as a public letter censuring particular employees, see, e.g., Stern, 737 F.2d at 93-94, to serve as the public interest in disclosing the names and other identifying information. Indeed, another member of this Court has held that, pursuant to Exemption 6, the same defendant properly withheld "`names [and other identifying information] of [its] staff members and other inmates that were involved in the investigation of retaliation, sexual harassment, and cruel and unusual wrongful acts.'" Coleman I, 607 F.Supp.2d at 22 (citation omitted); see also Wilson, 730 F.Supp.2d at 156 (holding that name of EEO complainant was properly withheld); Horowitz, 428 F.3d at 279-80 (holding that name of complainant of sexual misconduct claim was properly withheld).
It is true that "[t]he Court ordinarily `consider[s], when balancing the
Where an agency establishes the applicability of an exemption, "it must nonetheless disclose all reasonably segregable, nonexempt portions of the requested record." Assassination Archives & Research Ctr. v. CIA, 334 F.3d 55, 58 (D.C.Cir.2003) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)). As this Court noted in a prior opinion in this litigation, segregability is not at issue because the defendant made that assessment previously. Prison Legal News II, 780 F.Supp.2d at 35 n. 3. In any event, because the Court has now determined that the defendant properly redacted names and other identifying information, and upon review of the defendant's Vaughn submissions, the Court finds that the submissions adequately specify "which portions of the document[s] are disclosable and which are allegedly exempt." Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 827 (D.C.Cir.1973).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the defendant's motions for summary judgment, and denies the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
