Case Detail
| Case Title | KEARNS v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2017cv00434 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2017-03-10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2018-05-15 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge James E. Boasberg | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | KEVIN KEARNS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Kevin Kearns, an employee of the Federal Aviation Administration, submitted a FOIA request to the FAA for records concerning complaints filed against him by other employees. The agency responded by disclosing some records, but redacted personally-identifying information under Exemption 6(invasion of privacy). Kearns filed an administrative appeal, which was denied. Kearns submitted a second FOIA request for two internal investigation files. The agency indicated that there were 1,537 responsive pages. The agency withheld 797 pages entirely and 333 pages in part under Exemption 6. Kearns filed an administrative appeal of the decision, but the agency had not responded by the time he filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Opinion/Order [23] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge James Boasberg has ruled that Kevin Kearns failed to show he had exhausted administrative remedies under both FOIA and the Privacy Act and that records concerning the agency's investigation of complaints against Kearns were not required to be disclosed under the Privacy Act because they were not in a system of records retrieved by name or unique identifier. Kearns first requested a copy of Accountability Board case number 2012-0155, which related to the investigation of complaints filed against him. The agency disclosed the case file, but redacted identifying information about third parties. Kearns filed an administrative appeal of the redactions, which was upheld by the agency. He then requested the entire file under both FOIA and the Privacy Act. The agency told Kearns there were no additional records beyond those provided to him in response to his first FOIA request. Kearns did not appeal the agency's decision. A year later, Kearns filed another request under FOIA and the Privacy Act for two identified internal security investigation files. In response to this request, the agency located 1,537 pages, disclosed 333 pages with redactions and withheld 797 pages under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). Kearns appealed the decision, arguing the agency could not withhold information under Exemption 6 in response to his Privacy Act request. Before the agency responded to his appeal, Kearns filed suit, alleging the agency had improperly responded to all three of his requests. Kearns argued that he had constructively exhausted his administrative remedies as to his first FOIA/PA request because he filed the request based on the agency's advice contained in its response to Kearns' appeal of his original FOIA request. Boasberg found that did not absolve Kearns from filing an appeal of the second request. He pointed out that "here, Kearns is attempting to leapfrog those administrative checks by claiming exhaustion of his [second] request on the coattails of his [prior] appeal." Boasberg indicated that "indeed, exhaustion under the Privacy Act, unlike FOIA, is a jurisdictional threshold to challenging an agency determination." Kearns argued the agency erred by failing to process his first FOIA request under the Privacy Act as well. Boasberg rejected the claim, pointing out that "the Accountability Board files requested by Kearns were not retrieved from a 'system of records' under the criteria of the Privacy Act. Indeed, Plaintiff has provided no evidence that the documents he requested in [his first FOIA request] were actually retrieved by his name or other personal identifier. Rather, the FAA makes clear that the files provided to Kearns were instead retrieved by reference to the Accountability Board case number. Because the documents released pursuant to Plaintiff's [second] request were not retrieved by the name or identifier of an individual, they do not exist within a system of records for purposes of the Privacy Act. As that statute does not provide an independent basis for disclosing records withheld from the FAA's response to the [first FOIA] request, the Court finds that the agency was under no obligation to process Kearns' request in accordance with the Privacy Act." Boasberg indicated that the lack of retrieval from a system of records also doomed any Privacy Act claim Kearns had pertaining to his third request in which he cited both FOIA and the Privacy Act. Boasberg upheld the agency's Exemption 6 claims, noting that "while Plaintiff may have his own interest in identifying his accusers, FOIA is not concerned with the desires of the individual requester. Rather, the only valid public interest under the statute is one that serves FOIA's core purpose of shedding light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties. . .Here, Kearns is entirely unable to explain how disclosing the third-party information at issue in the ROIs would shed light on the FAA's performance of its statutory duties. The Court also cannot identify any such public interest in disclosure, and it therefore concludes that the privacy interests at stake are sufficient to justify withholding."
Issues: Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
