Summary
The Sixth Circuit held that the DEA and DOJ properly withheld documents under FOIA Exemption 7(C) (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C)) because the privacy interests of the subjects and third parties mentioned in law enforcement files outweighed the public interest in disclosure of a U.S. Attorney's decision not to prosecute a state prosecutor. The court applied the *Favish* standard, requiring the requester to produce evidence that would warrant a reasonable belief of government impropriety, and found that a bare suspicion based on a disagreement between the DEA and the U.S. Attorney was insufficient. The records were also non-segregable because redacting exempt information would leave them with little informational value. Key topics: FOIA, Exemption 7(C), privacy vs. public interest balancing, prosecutorial discretion, law enforcement records, segregability, and the Sixth Circuit's adoption of the *Favish* evidentiary burden.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court correctly held that the requested documents are exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 7(C) because the privacy interests of individuals mentioned in the documents outweigh the public interest in disclosure.
- Whether the documents are segregable such that non-exempt portions could be disclosed.
Holdings
- The documents are exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) because the privacy interests of individuals mentioned in the documents outweigh the minimal public interest in disclosure.
- The documents are not segregable because exempt and non-exempt information are inextricably intertwined, and redaction would leave little informational value.
Key quotations
“FOIA codifies 'a general philosophy of full agency disclosure unless information is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language.'” (at 4)
“Exemption 7(C) prevents disclosure when: (1) the information was compiled for law enforcement purposes and (2) the disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” (at 4-5)
“If the government establishes a privacy interest for which Exemption 7(c) applies, the burden shifts to the requester to 'establish a sufficient reason for the disclosure.'” (at 7)
“The Enquirer provides no evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the U.S. Attorney's decision was motivated by some improper influence rather than one of the many factors he was allowed—indeed, compelled—to consider.” (at 9)
“Balancing these interests, we conclude that the privacy interests implicated by these documents outweigh the public's interest in disclosure.” (at 11)
Factual background
In 2015, a DEA task force investigated Ryan Jacobs, a drug dealer in Northern Kentucky. Jacobs sold drugs to a married couple who were friends with the local elected Commonwealth's Attorney. The Commonwealth's Attorney had conversations with the couple about the investigation, opposed Jacobs's bond reduction, and later told a police officer in an unrelated case that he would not issue a search warrant if a specific DEA agent was involved. The DEA opened an investigation into the Commonwealth's Attorney (Operation Speakeasy) and determined there was sufficient evidence to charge him with obstruction of justice. However, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky declined to prosecute. The Cincinnati Enquirer filed a FOIA request for documents related to these investigations, which the DEA denied under Exemption 7(C).
Procedural history
The Cincinnati Enquirer filed a FOIA request with the DEA seeking documents related to an investigation into a Commonwealth's Attorney. The DEA denied the request under Exemption 7(C). The Enquirer sued, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court reviewed the documents in camera and granted summary judgment for defendants, holding the documents exempt. The Enquirer appealed.