Case Detail
| Case Title | LONG et al v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2002cv02467 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2002-12-16 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2006-09-08 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Paul L. Friedman | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | SUSAN B. LONG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | DAVID BURNHAM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Opinion/Order [30] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Paul Friedman has ruled that the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys must continue to disclose most statistical data from its Central Case Management Databases, containing information on civil, criminal, and debt collection cases as well as personnel resource matters, to the Transactional Records Clearinghouse, although it may redact personally-identifying information under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). The Justice Department had provided such data to TRAC covering 1974 through 1997, but had withheld certain fields, giving rise to a dispute between the parties. TRAC filed suit in 1998 and in 1999 EOUSA informed TRAC that it would release the database information based on terms in another FOIA suit TRAC had litigated against Justice in the Northern District of New York. By so doing, EOUSA committed itself to releasing the 1974-1997 data again with fewer redactions. TRAC then made a request for data covering the first six months of 1999, but EOUSA denied the request, saying it would not release data until completing a year-end verification process. The agency then questioned whether TRAC qualified for a fee waiver and requested various financial records pertaining to funding and also informed TRAC that it was revamping its guidelines for redaction of the database records, an action that would postpone processing of TRAC's requests indefinitely. TRAC then amended its complaint to include more mid-year data. In a separate action consolidated with its prior suit, TRAC sued the agency after being denied access to monthly data, particularly information in the "program category" pertaining to ongoing investigations. However, by December 2002, EOUSA had released most of the monthly data except for the program category records. Friedman first turned to the agency's claims that a number of data fields containing information captioned as "agency numbers" were protected by Exemption 2 (internal practices and procedures). TRAC contended that the data did not pertain to personnel matters and that it was of public interest, meaning that it could not be considered trivial. Saying that it was a "much closer call than the Department suggests," Friedman agreed with the agency, noting that D.C. Circuit case law on Exemption 2 did not restrict its coverage to personnel-related information. He admitted that disclosure of the information might be helpful to researchers, but he pointed out that "plaintiffs' submissions insufficiently demonstrate how access to the withheld information would assist them in achieving this goal. In any event, whatever limited public interest in disclosure may exist is outweighed by the government's interest in avoiding the significant burden involving in collecting and evaluating this information for release â€" namely, locating and redacting privacy-protected information that is scattered throughout the relevant database fields." The government also claimed that unverified data was protected by Exemption 5 (privileges), a position that seemed directly at variance with the D.C. Circuit's holding in Petroleum Information Corp. v. Dept of Interior, 976 F.2d 1429 (D.C. Cir. 1992). However, during the litigation the agency dropped the Exemption 5 claim and, despite TRAC's argument that such a claim could be raised again in the future without being subject to judicial review, Friedman found that, in the context of this case, the claim was moot. The agency had redacted personal information under Exemption 6 and Exemption 7(C) and before Friedman it suggested that this information was much like the criminal history data at issue in Reporters Committee â€" that even if some of this information was available through the courts' PACER system or agency data made public at the National Archives â€" it was still so difficult to find in public sources that it should remain protected. However, Friedman observed that "information available at the NARA or disseminated over the internet through PACER is decidedly less obscure than 'public records that might be found after a diligent search of courthouse files, county archives, and local police stations throughout the country.' Accordingly, while the Court has determined that disclosure of fields identifying the subject of central case management records compiled for law enforcement purposes would implicate protected privacy interests, it further finds that the interests at stake are significantly less substantial than those at issue in Reporters Committee." He then rejected the government's claim that SafeCard Service's categorical protection for personal information in law enforcement records provided a basis for withholding personal information, noting that the protection "does not apply where plaintiffs are seeking information solely about individuals who have been publicly charged in a criminal case or publicly named in a civil action." But he found that TRAC's public interest argument â€" that disclosure of the personal information would allow for outside scrutiny of the government â€" was too broad and indicated that personally identifying information concerning charges brought by the government could be withheld. However, he noted that individuals who had sued the government were not protected because "all of these records involve instances where individuals voluntarily have chosen to sue the government, thereby effectively waiving any privacy interests relating to the fact that they are in litigation with the government." Friedman also found that, since TRAC was requesting data specifically coded as pertaining to non-individual entities or property, the burden on the agency of disclosing such information would not be overwhelming. The agency claimed Exemption 7(A) (interference with law enforcement investigation or proceedings), Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques) and Exemption 7(F) (safety of an individual) to withhold information about the lead criminal charge in cases, arguing that such information in combination with other information might tip suspects off to elements of the government's case. Rejecting this argument, Friedman observed that "the Department offers no evidence that there in fact exists any record that has such a combination. To the contrary, the record in this case demonstrates that a substantial if not overwhelming majority of the records do not contain such a combination." However, he allowed the government to withhold information for cases involving terrorism, noting that the D.C. Circuit's ruling in Center for National Security Studies v. Dept of Justice, 331 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2003), had extended the traditional court deference in national security cases to law enforcement claims involving national security-related investigations. TRAC also made several procedural challenges, claiming that EOUSA's notification letter was inadequate because it did not provide sufficient information about how long the processing of requests might actually take. Disagreeing, Friedman pointed out that the standard notice indicated that large requests would take approximately nine months to process. He indicated that "it is far from unreasonable for the EOUSA to assume that requesters who submit very large requests and who do not contact the EOUSA to narrow their requests agree to a release date of nine months from the date of the notice." He added that "the purpose of the notice requirement â€" as plaintiffs acknowledge â€" is to allow requesters to determine whether they should narrow their requests in order to receive the information more quickly. Plaintiffs, however, do not allege that TRAC would have narrowed any request if the content of the notices that they received had been different." Finally, Friedman concluded that TRAC's challenges to the agency's delays and procedures in making a fee status and fee waiver determination became moot once the agency agreed to waive all fees.
Opinion/Order [40]Issues: Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy, Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Paul Friedman has rejected most of the Department of Justice's motion to reconsider his ruling requiring disclosure of large portions of the agency's Central Case Management Databases to TRAC. The agency argued that Friedman had mistakenly assumed the agency claimed that the content of the "criminal lead charge" field of the database was categorically exempt when the agency's position was actually that there was a subset of information in that field that needed redaction. Friedman observed, however, that "the Department is wrong. The Court's Opinion makes plain that it clearly understood this argument when it was made initially and specifically rejected it. Indeed, as plaintiffs point out, a summary of the Department's original argument is set forth in the Courts's [previous] Opinion, and that summary 'corresponds perfectly with the government's current explanations of what it was attempting to argue.' The Department is merely repeating arguments that the Court both understood and disagreed with, and the Department has even less of a leg to stand on at this state under the standards for alteration or amendment of judgment as set forth in Rule 59(e) and the relevant case law." Friedman was more sympathetic to the agency's argument that redaction of only terrorism-related codes in the "program category" field pertaining to ongoing investigations could jeopardize law enforcement efforts. Friedman first rejected the agency's attempt to expand the D.C. Circuit's holding in Center for National Security Studies v. Dept. of Justice, 331 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2003), to mean that courts should give deference to agencies on all law enforcement matters. He noted that "at most, Center for National Security Studies stands for the proposition that the Department's claim that records were compiled for a law enforcement purpose is entitled to some deference, so long as its proffer in that regard meets the standards set forth in the case law." He indicated that "as for the deference the Department is entitled to in the subset of law enforcement cases that involve terrorism �" as opposed to law enforcement cases in general �" Center for National Security Studies does state that the justifications and proffers made by the executive branch are entitled to 'some degree of deference . . .in cases implicating national security.'" The agency essentially made a mosaic argument �" that redaction of only those codes related to terrorism would lead to the assumption that any such redacted case pertained to a terrorist investigation. Friedman agreed with the agency's concerns, but not its suggested fix �" to delete all entries in the "program category." He pointed out that "the vast majority of law enforcement investigations do not involve terrorism or otherwise implicate national security, and the vast majority of 'program category' codes do not relate to terrorism or national security. To permit redaction of all 'program category' codes from the records of all ongoing law enforcement investigation there would be to disregard the structure and purpose of the FOIA." To address the agency's concerns, Friedman explained that the agency could redact other information related to those program category entries for terrorism-related investigations so that the details of the investigation could be appropriately protected.
Issues: Exemption 7 - Law enforcement records | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
