Filed January 30, 2017
In order to defeat the assertion of Exemption 7(C), the FOIA plaintiff must show a substantial public interest in disclosure of the individual’s name that outweighs that privacy interest. Fitzgibbon v. C.I.A., 911 F.2d 755, 767 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (“the mention of an individual’s name in a law enforcement file will engender comment and speculation and carries a stigmatizing connotation”); Favish, 541 U.S. at 165–66 (2004) (“Law enforcement documents obtained by Government investigators often contain information about persons interviewed as witnesses or initial suspects but whose link to the official inquiry may be the result of mere happenstance. There is special reason, therefore, to give protection to this intimate personal data, to which the public does not have a general right of access in the ordinary course.”)
Filed September 1, 2016
This is not enough. Muchnick’s vague and general allegation about DHS’s conduct does not “warrant a belief by a reasonable person that the alleged Government impropriety might have occurred,” Nat’l Archives, 541 U.S. at 175, so it cannot override the third-party privacy interests codified in FOIA. Muchnick’s focus on allegations against Gibney are misplaced, as a “public interest” requires misconduct by the agency responding to the records request—not misconduct by an individual third party.
Filed November 30, 2016
They should be allowed to leave the courtroom with the assurance that they will not be bombarded by crime scene images of their loved ones. Favish, 541 U.S. at 166 (noting that family members should be able to take “refuge from a sensation- seeking culture for their own peace of mind and tranquility.”).
Filed January 27, 2017
Rather, the information must “contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government.” Reporters’ Comm., 489 U.S. at 775; Favish, 541 U.S. at 172-73 (public interest must be significant and information sought must be likely to advance that interest); see also Davis, 968 F.2d at 1282 (analyzing whether information would confirm or refute alleged government misconduct). 2. Names and Other Identifying Information of Law Enforcement Agents, Witnesses, and Other Third Parties Withheld Pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) In the instant case, the withheld information was proper under the second prong of the Exemption 6 analysis, whether disclosure of the information at issue “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” or in the case of Exemption 7(C), “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
Filed July 20, 2010
Only where the requester can produce meaningful evidence – "more than a bare suspicion" – which would cause a reasonable Case 1:09-cv-01177-RMC Document 48 Filed 07/20/10 Page 27 of 33 16 person to believe that the government had engaged in impropriety should the Court even consider balancing the privacy interests against the public interest in disclosure. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. at 174. 3.
Filed July 20, 2010
Once a privacy interest has been established, as here, it must be balanced against the public interest, if any, that would be served by disclosure. Nat’l Archives and Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. at 171. “Where the privacy concerns addressed by Exemption 7(C) are present, [this] exemption requires the person requesting the information to establish a sufficient reason for the disclosure.”
Filed July 20, 2010
Only where the requester can produce meaningful evidence – "more than a bare suspicion" – which would cause a reasonable person to believe that the government had engaged in impropriety should the Court even consider balancing the privacy interests against the public interest in disclosure. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. at 174. 3.
Filed May 19, 2017
Consequently, in order to trigger the balancing of public interests against private interests, a FOIA requester must (1) "show that the public interest sought to be advanced is a significant one, an interest more specific than having the information for its own sake," and (2) "show the information is likely to advance that interest." Boyd v. Criminal Division of United States Dep’t of Justice, 475 F.3d 381, 366, (D.C. Cir. 2007) (citing Favish, 541 U.S. at 172). It is the “interest of the general public, and not that of the private litigant” that the Court considers in this analysis.
Filed November 1, 2016
As the Supreme Court has recognized, governmental open-records laws are “a structural necessity in a real democracy.” Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 172 (2004). Case 2:16-cv-01212-JLR Document 81 Filed 11/01/16 Page 6 of 15 DEFENDANT DALEIDEN’S MOTION TO DISMISS 3D AMD. COMPL.
Filed April 6, 2015
A, and the other sources described here is more than sufficient to satisfy Favish’s requirement that a FOIA plaintiff can “produce evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that the alleged Government impropriety might have occurred.” Favish, 541 U.S. at 174. The information HRW seeks would allow for further investigation of these concerns.