Case Detail
| Case Title | CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2010cv01810 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2010-10-26 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2011-11-10 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Amy Berman Jackson | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [18] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Amy Berman Jackson has ruled that the Justice Department conducted an adequate search for records pertaining to a film company's attempts to arrange an interview with former lobbyist Jack Abramoff while he was serving his prison sentence and that the Bureau of Prisons properly withheld information from CREW under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). BOP released 37 pages, but redacted everything on seven of those pages. In response to a second request submitted by CREW, the Criminal Division released 35 email messages, redacting parts of 25 of them. Jackson found that the agency reviewed Abramoff's central file which "contains information related to all aspects of an inmate's incarceration, including media requests." She noted the agency searched the file based on key words supplied by CREW and originally found 46 pages. Further review yielded an additional 11 pages. Jackson observed that "because in the absence of contrary evidence, agency declarations are given a presumption of good faith and are generally sufficient to demonstrate an agency's compliance with its obligations under FOIA, the Court is persuaded that the BOP conducted an adequate search that was 'reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.'" The agency claimed that both Abramoff and the individuals who sought to interview him had privacy interests that should be protected. Jackson indicated that "neither party has pointed to case law that directly addresses the factual scenario before the Court, or that answers the question of whether third parties such as the journalists and filmmakers who attempted to interview Mr. Abramoff have a protectable privacy interest. It is true that these individuals sought to interview Mr. Abramoff in their professional capacities. And, the fact that some of the people who may be identified in the documents have spoken publicly about their attempts to secure interviews or film deals with Mr. Abramoff reduces the risk that if the information is released, they would be subjected to unwanted attention or embarrassment." She explained that the agency's best argument was that D.C. Circuit precedent on what privacy interests could be protected was so broad, "the Court concludes for purposes of the balancing test that there is at least a minimal privacy interest involved in this case." CREW argued that there was a strong public interest in knowing if BOP had tried to prevent Abramoff from speaking to the media. But Jackson noted that "any public interest asserted by CREW has been satisfied by the documents and portions of the documents already released and therefore there is no public interest in the limited redacted or withheld information that would justify its disclosure. Congress enacted FOIA to allow citizens to know 'what their government is up to,' not what Mr. Abramoff or various press outlets are up to." She added that "CREW now knows when and whether interview requests were made and how they were resolved. What has been redacted is simply the personal information identifying who made the requests, which is not a matter that has any bearing on CREW's stated public purpose." She pointed out that "the information about third parties in this case simply 'happens to be in the warehouse of the Government,' and sheds no light on the government's performance of its statutory duties. As a result, there is no public interest in the disclosure of these documents. . .Although the privacy interest may be minimal, CREW cannot point to any public interest that overcomes even that weak privacy interest."
Issues: Adequacy - Search, Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
