Case Detail
| Case Title | MOUNT v. JOHNSON | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2016cv02532 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2016-12-30 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2018-02-05 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Christopher R. Cooper | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | JASON MOUNT | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Jason Mount, a supervisory agent at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Homeland Security for records concerning the 2012 Inspector General's investigation of allegations that supervisory agent Peter Edge had lost his official credentials to a prostitute and that they were subsequently retrieved by local police. The agency refused to confirm or deny the existence of records. Mount argued the agency had disclosed the existence of the investigation when it interviewed him during the investigation. Mount filed an administrative appeal, which was denied by the agency. Mount then filed suit. Complaint issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | JEH CHARLES JOHNSON Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [13] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Christopher Cooper has ruled that the Department of Homeland Security properly issued a Glomar response neither confirming nor denying the existence of records in response to Jason Mount's request for Inspector General records pertaining to allegations that a special agent lost his official credentials to a prostitute and the credentials had to be retrieved by the local police. The agency claimed Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records) provided the justification for its Glomar response. The agency claimed the Inspector General's function was to investigate allegations of fraud and abuse that could lead to criminal charges. Cooper pointed out that 'given this function, any OIG investigation of a Special Agent losing his credentials to a prostitute would be related to the enforcement of federal laws and connected to OIG's law enforcement duties." Cooper agreed with the agency that disclosure would confirm that the agency had investigated the special agent. Mount argued that the public interest in knowing how the agency handled allegations of misconduct was sufficient to override the privacy interest. But Cooper pointed out that "the D.C. Circuit 'has consistently found that interest, without more, insufficient to justify disclosure when balanced against the substantial privacy interest weighing against revealing the targets of a law enforcement investigation.' Mount does not provide 'more' here. Consequently, under D.C. Circuit precedent, the public interest is not strong enough to justify the privacy invasion."
Issues: Determination - Glomar response, Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
