Case Detail
Case Title | Goldner v Social Security Administration | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Maryland | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Baltimore | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2017cv01243 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2017-05-05 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2017-12-14 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Chief Judge James K. Bredar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | Ed Goldner | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Ed Goldner submitted a FOIA request to the Social Security Administration for a list of individuals and businesses who were representing clients in social security disability claim cases. He indicated that he was not seeking private or home address information for anyone. The agency acknowledged receipt of Goldner's request, but denied it on the basis that he was seeking personal information about others included in the records. Goldner filed an administrative appeal. The agency provided some contact information for businesses, but withheld other identifying information. Goldner then filed suit. Complaint issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | Social Security Administration | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Opinion/Order [25] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Maryland has ruled that the Social Security Administration conducted an adequate search for a list of attorneys and non-attorneys eligible to represent claimants in social security disability claims and then properly redacted personal information under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). Based on the parameters of Ed Goldner's request, the agency searched its Modernized Claims System database. That database search yielded 1,221 pages, but because the database could not differentiate whether contact information related to businesses or individuals, it redacted emails and phone numbers. Goldner challenged the adequacy of the search because the agency had indicated that there were other databases. But the court pointed out that "the reason that Defendant was unable to provide this information was not because it did not find it, but rather because it believed that information was exempt from FOIA." The court also rejected Goldner's claim that the information was not protected by Exemption 6 because he was only requesting business information. The court explained that "Defendant nowhere argues that business information is personal and should not be disclosed. Rather, it argues that, after conducting a reasonable search, it was unable to parse certain fields to determine if they contained business or personal information, and the default assumption that these fields contained personal information." Goldner contended that representatives fill out forms that distinguish between business and personal information. The court pointed out that "Defendant has put forth non-conclusory declarations that explain why, even though the forms may have such fields, the database that Defendant chose to search (based on Plaintiff's request) cannot distinguish that information. To the extent that Plaintiff believes there is a better way to search for this data, he is free to submit further FOIA requests. That belief, however, goes to the reasonableness of the search, and does not address the question of whether the information Defendant withheld was properly considered exempt from FOIA."
Issues: Search - Reasonableness of search, Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|