Case Detail
Case Title | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2009cv02138 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2009-11-13 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2011-03-29 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Richard W. Roberts | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [17] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Richard Roberts has ruled that the Federal Reserve properly withheld information about several individuals and organizations whose visits to Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke or Board Member Kevin Warsh were considered to be personal under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). Judicial Watch requested visitors' logs for Bernanke and Warsh. In disclosing the logs, the agency deleted the names of individuals, and in two instances, the name of organizations, which were identified as personal visits. Judicial Watch sued, challenging the deletions. Roberts noted that "the Board staff charged with responding to Judicial Watch's FOIA request confirmed with the office of Bernanke and Warsh that for all but one visitor whose log entry under "Organization" suggested a personal visit, 'the visit was in fact of a personal nature and was in no way business related.' Judicial Watch has not pointed to any evidence in the record suggesting that these visits were not of a personal nature, nor has it provided any independent evidence of bad faith. Mere speculation that the visits may not have been, in fact, personal is insufficient to rebut the presumption of good faith accorded to the agency affidavit. Because the names of personal visitors reveal nothing about the Board's activities or conduct, there is no public interest in their disclosure. On the other side of the balance, the visitors have at least some privacy interest in protecting their names from disclosure, as it is quite conceivable that parties other than Judicial Watch might be interested in obtaining the names of individuals personally affiliated with high-ranking members of the Board." Roberts upheld the agency's segregability analysis as well. He indicated that "the Vaughn Index and the Board's supplementing declaration both explain that the information in the organization column for these two visitors 'would reveal the family relationship, and therefore the identity, of the visitor.' Because disclosing this information would reveal exempt information, it is 'inextricably intertwined' with the withheld names."
Issues: Exemption 6 - Personnel, medical, similar file | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|