Case Detail
| Case Title | BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW et al v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2018cv01860 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2018-08-08 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2020-03-13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Randolph D. Moss | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | CHARLES KURZMAN | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | The Brennan Center for Justice submitted FOIA requests to the Department of Justice for records from the LIONS database involving public charges listed under six categories related to terrorism. The Brennan Center also requested expedited processing and a fee waiver. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request. The agency denied the Brennan Center's request for expedited processing, but granted its request for a fee waiver. The agency responded to the Brennan Center's request by indicating that the information it sought was available on DOJ's website. The Brennan Center filed an administrative appeal. The Office of Information Policy upheld the denial of expedited processing as well as the referral to the website, adding that some personal information was properly redacted under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). The Brennan Center then filed suit. Complaint issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Opinion/Order [30] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Randolph Moss has ruled that the Department of Justice must disclose docket numbers for terrorism-related cases that resulted in convictions, but that docket numbers for terrorism-related cases that resulted in acquittals or dismissals are protected by Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). In response to a FOIA request from the Brennan Center for Justice and Professor Charles Kurzman for records relating to public terrorism cases �" including docket numbers �" the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys withheld the docket numbers under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) and Exemption 7(C). Moss pointed out that two D.C. Circuit decisions �" ACLU v. Dept of Justice (ACLU I), 655 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011), and ACLU v. Dept of Justice (ACLU II), 750 F.3d 927 (D.C. Cir. 2014) �" were dispositive. The case record data was contained in the agency's Legal Information Office Network System (LIONS). Moss began by examining whether the records qualified under Exemption 7. He observed that "although the principal function of several components of [DOJ] is undoubtedly law enforcement, the Department does not contend that EOUSA is such a component." But he pointed out that "even without any deference to the Department's characterization of the database, the Court is convinced that the records at issue �" which deal with terrorism investigations and prosecutions �" were compiled for law enforcement purposes." Challenging that characterization, the Brennan Center noted that the database contained both civil and criminal law enforcement records. Moss indicated that "the particular docket numbers at issue, moreover, relate to terrorism cases." He added that "the Department has explained that the docket numbers are used to prosecute criminal cases and to assist U.S. Attorney's Offices in deciding how to allocate law enforcement resources." While in ACLU I, the D.C. Circuit concluded that the privacy interest of individuals who had been convicted in the disclosure of docket numbers was de minimis but not non-existent. The ACLU I decision also indicated that some charges could potentially be so stigmatizing that the privacy interest would dramatically increase. DOJ argued terrorism cases were such an instance. Moss acknowledged the stigma of being involved in a terrorism case, noting that "the stigma of a terrorism conviction is likely substantial and that disclosure of the docket numbers of cases that the Department has characterized for its internal purposes as terrorism-related risks invites unwanted attention to the subject of those prosecutions." But Moss pointed out that DOJ's argument ran into the same problem as did the criminal convictions in ACLU I �" public attention. He observed that "the Department cannot plausibly argue (nor does it attempt to argue) that the public 'will hear of' the terrorism-related nature of cases 'for the first time merely because the Justice Department releases a list of docket numbers.'" As a result, Moss explained, "if the privacy interest at stake here is greater than in ACLU I, the interest is still far weaker than the core interests protected by Exemption 7(C)." He indicated that "this is not to say that criminal defendants have 'no privacy interest in the facts of their conviction' but only that their 'interests are weaker than' the interests of those 'who have been acquitted or whose cases have been dismissed.'" Moss found that the public interest in disclosure outweighed the privacy interest of those convicted of terrorism. He observed that "release of the docket numbers from the LIONS database will elicit attention or news coverage that intrudes on the defendant's privacy in a new or different manner. On the other hand, the public interest weighs heavily in favor of disclosure. Understanding how and when the Department categorizes cases as terrorism cases and following trends relating to these prosecutions would light on the workings of government. . ." Although in ACLU II, the D.C. Circuit found that individuals who had been acquitted or whose charges had been dismissed had a substantial privacy interest in non-disclosure of docket numbers, the Brennan Center argued that the circumstances here differed. The Brennan Center argued that there had been public disclosure of the filing of many terrorism cases. Rejecting that notion, Moss observed that "the question is whether disclosure would impede the defendants' ability 'to move on with their lives without having the public reminded of their alleged but never proven transgressions.' For the reasons explained in ACLU II, it would." Finding that the docket numbers for cases that resulted in acquittal or dismissal were protected, Moss noted that "to be clear, ACLU II did not hold that the disclosure of docket numbers for cases that resulted in acquittals or dismissals is never warranted but, rather, only that the privacy interests at stake are more substantial than for cases that ended in conviction. Here, that distinction is dispositive because Plaintiffs have offered no basis for the Court to find that the public interest in disclosure of the docket numbers is greater than the public interest the D.C. Circuit considered in ACLU I and ACLU II."
Opinion/Order [45]Issues: Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records FOIA Project Annotation: Reconsidering his earlier decision, Judge Randolph Moss has ruled that records identifying individuals who were convicted of a variety of crimes considered by the Justice Department to be terrorism-related are protected by Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). Based on data published by DOJ that the agency had brought 4,496 terrorism-related prosecutions since 2001 and had obtained 3,772 convictions or guilty pleas, the Brennan Center for Justice requested records from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys' Legal Information Office Network System relating to terrorism, including the docket number associated with the court proceeding in each case. EOUSA withheld all docket numbers under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) and Exemption 7(C). In his first decision in the case, Moss relied on ACLU v. Dept of Justice, 655 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) and ACLU v. Dept of Justice, 750 F.3d 927 (D.C. Cir. 2014), in which the D.C. Circuit ruled that docket numbers in which individuals were acquitted or charges were dismissed were protected under Exemption 7(C), while docket numbers for cases in which individuals were convicted or pled guilty must be disclosed. Based on those two decisions, Moss ordered EOUSA to process the docket numbers requested by the Brennan Center in the manner reflected by the holdings in the ACLU cases. DOJ asked Moss to reconsider his decision, arguing that the privacy interests in these docket numbers were greater than previously indicated. However, while reconsidering DOJ's greater privacy interest argument, Moss also concluded that the public interest in disclosure of these docket numbers was also weightier than those present in the ACLU cases. After conducting a sampling of cases to determine the extent to which cases may have been miscategorized, DOJ contended that 89 convictions were not publicly linked to terrorism. Moss agreed that because of the uncertainty as to whether some cases did or did not involve terrorism charges, Exemption 7(C) applied. He noted that "disclosure of the LIONS terrorism-related cases, moreover, would not serve the public interest in understanding which prosecutions the Department of Justice classifies as terrorism-related and how the Department prosecutes those cases. To be sure, the public might be interested in how the Department handles terrorism-related investigations. But specific criminal investigations as opposed to prosecutions, are not generally subject to public disclosure â€" and for good reason." He added that "the Court concludes that the Department has properly invoked Exemption 7(C) to protect the identities of those individuals who were subject to terrorism-related investigations but were never charged with or convicted of a terrorism-related charge." Moss also found that docket numbers for cases in which the connection to terrorism was only revealed internally and never to the public deserved protection as well. He pointed out that "if the crime of conviction was one that, on its face, bore a connection to terrorism, public disclosure is unlikely to cause serious or unjust harm. But if the crime of conviction bore no obvious connection to terrorism, public disclosure of the Department's internal characterization would not merely open an old wound but would risk inflicting a new one."
Issues: Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records, Exemption 7(A) - Categorical exemption | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
