![]() Holding: The court affirms the withholding of all federal employee names at issue under Exemption 6 and reverses the district court ruling insofar as it ruled that duty-station information for certain sensitive occupations must be disclosed. ![]() rather than its use of a FOIA exemption to merely redact content," as was done here. DOJ requires "some sort of 'heightened scrutiny,'" finding Roth to be "inapposite, as it dealt with review of the FBI's use of a Glomar response. ![]() ![]() Thus, the court concludes that there is no evidence of misconduct and, accordingly, no public interest sufficient to outweigh the privacy rights of the third parties mentioned in the files.įinally, the court notes that even if there were evidence of FBI misconduct, plaintiff's challenge would still fail because "he cannot show that the information he seeks would likely advance the public interest in revealing agency misconduct." "There is no redaction of material describing FBI efforts to hide information, an FBI plan to 'game' the joint investigation so as to sequester information within the non-prosecuting agency, or any other actual action taken by the FBI all that exists is the deletion of information that would identify those who were mentioned in the … file." The Six Circuit rejects plaintiff's claim that Roth v. Thus, while the state may have breached its Brady obligations by failing to provide with evidence of FBI interview and photo-lineup identification, presents no evidence that the FBI had any similar obligation." The court also comments that plaintiff has not "provide evidence showing that the FBI somehow used its status as a joint investigator to shield exculpatory information from" plaintiff. Here, however, the FBI declined to prosecute, who was prosecuted by Tennessee only. 83 (1963), to provide him with any exculpatory information in its possession. that there is a public interest in "'the revelation of wrongdoing in the ustice epartment," the court notes that "more than bare allegations of federal malfeasance are required before the public interest becomes significant enough to overcome the privacy concerns embodied in Exemption 7(C)." The court "note that FOIA is concerned only with shedding light on misconduct of the federal government, not state governments." In the instant case, "t is true that, if the federal government had prosecuted, it would have had an obligation under Brady v. Next, with regard to the primary public interest argument that plaintiff makes on appeal, i.e. "This court has made clear that the purpose of the FOIA is not to act as a 'substitute for the normal process of discovery in civil and criminal cases' and will not turn the purpose of advancing private litigation into a public one." The court upholds the application of Exemptions 6 and 7C to the investigative records at issue, noting that "ecause it is undisputed that all the redactions at issue were contained in FBI records compiled for the purpose of law enforcement, the district court correctly applied the more protective standards of Exemption 7C to both the government's Exemption 6 and Exemption 7(C) redactions." The court acknowledges that a "privacy interest exists not only for those who are suspects in an investigation, but also for third parties mentioned in the documents, such as witnesses, informants, and investigators." However, the court concludes that the requester has not presented a public interest that outweighs the privacy rights of the individuals mentioned in the investigative files at issue.įirst, the court rejects plaintiff's argument that he needs the information in order to present exculpatory evidence in his state proceeding. Holding: Affirming district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the FBI.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |