Case Detail
| Case Title | The New York Times Company et al v. United States Department of Homeland Security | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | Southern District of New York | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Foley Square | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2012cv08100 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2012-11-07 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2013-06-17 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Shira A. Scheindlin | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | The New York Times Company | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | Maria Sacchetti | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | United States Department of Homeland Security | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Opinion/Order [12] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in New York has ruled that the Department of Homeland Security has not shown that the privacy interests of aliens who were released from detention after having been held for six months with no showing of likely removal in the foreseeable future outweigh the public interest in monitoring the agency's performance in identifying and releasing such aliens, a policy mandated by the Supreme Court's decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Boston Globe reporter Maria Sacchetti contended that the information about crimes committed by the aliens and their deportation status was already publicly available. But, recognizing that the aliens had a privacy interest under Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records) in the disclosure of a comprehensive list, Judge Shira Scheindlin noted that "here, too, there is a difference between the 'practical obscurity' of the existence of public records regarding individuals' prior convictions, and records regarding immigration status, which may be obtained with some effort, and the release of a spreadsheet compiled by [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] containing a variety of information about an individual including criminal convictions, status as an illegal immigrant, some information about that individual's current location, and the fact that he or she has not been deported." She then turned to the public interest in disclosure. She pointed out that "plaintiffs do not assert a direct public interest in knowing the names of individuals being released pursuant to Zadvydas. Rather, they argue that disclosure of the names of the Released Individuals would permit them to obtain information that 'would shed further light on critical aspects of the government's handling of its removal duties.'" Scheindlin indicated that the Second Circuit had considered and rejected a derivative use argument in Associated Press v. Dept of Defense, 554 F.3d 274 (2nd Cir. 2009)â€"information obtained as a result of information contained in government recordsâ€"but did not foreclose the theory altogether. However, in this case, Scheindlin found the way Sacchetti intended to use the information enhanced the public interest in disclosure. She noted that "plaintiffs do not propose to contact the individuals in furtherance of their investigation. . .Rather, plaintiffs argue that disclosure of individual names would permit 'monitoring of whether repeat offenders are on the list' and 'identif[ication] through public court documents [of] those countries with a track record of avoiding or resisting repatriations.'" Ruling that the list should be disclosed, Scheindlin observed that "plaintiffs have established that they would use the individual names in combination with other public information to draw conclusions about the performance of the DHSâ€"information which the government agency, for whatever reason, is disinclined to disclose on its own."
Opinion/Order [16]Issues: Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy FOIA Project Annotation: The court found the government's failure to file its motion to appeal the court's adverse ruling on time because the electronic system did not properly register the filing was a matter that was in the government's control and could not be excused. The court, therefore, denied the government motion.
Issues: Housekeeping | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
