Jigsaw Productions, Inc. v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

No. 24-cv-2358 (TSC) (D.D.C. Mar. 23, 2026) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · March 23, 2026 · No. No. 24-cv-2358 (TSC)

Summary

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the SEC’s motion for summary judgment and granted Jigsaw Productions, Inc.’s cross-motion in a FOIA action seeking an audio and video recording of Elon Musk’s SEC interview. The court held that the SEC failed to establish a substantial privacy interest or foreseeable harm under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C), particularly because the interview transcript had been released and Musk’s voice, image, and mannerisms were already widely public. The court ordered the SEC to release the portions corresponding to the unredacted transcript, while permitting redaction of recordings of other individuals.

Holdings

  1. The SEC improperly withheld the portions of the recording corresponding to Musk under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) because it failed to identify a substantial privacy interest that would be foreseeably harmed by disclosure.
  2. Although audio and video can reveal personal information not contained in a transcript, Musk's status as a highly public figure and the extensive public availability of his voice, likeness, mannerisms, and statements substantially diminished any privacy interest in this particular recording to a de minimis level.
  3. The SEC's assertion that release of the recording could contribute to deepfakes did not establish foreseeable harm because it was speculative and failed to show that release of one additional recording would actually impede Musk's privacy interests.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the SEC properly withheld the recording under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
  2. Whether the SEC demonstrated a substantial privacy interest in Musk's voice and likeness that would be foreseeably harmed by disclosure of the recording despite the public release of the interview's substance and Musk's extensive public exposure.
  3. Whether the court should order release of the portions of the recording corresponding to the unredacted portions of the transcript while permitting redaction of recordings of other individuals.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (23)

  • Johnson v. Commission on Presidential Debates, 202 F. Supp. 3d 159, 167 (D.D.C. 2016)(followed)
  • Department of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976)(followed)
  • CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159, 166 (1985)(followed)
  • Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. FBI, 3 F.4th 350, 357, 369-70 (D.C. Cir. 2021)(followed)
  • Human Rights Defense Center v. U.S. Park Police, 126 F.4th 708, 712-13, 716 (D.C. Cir. 2025)(followed)
  • Public Citizen, Inc. v. Rubber Manufacturers Association, 533 F.3d 810, 813 (D.C. Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Department of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 173 (1991)(followed)
  • Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Department of Justice, 58 F.4th 1255, 1262 (D.C. Cir. 2023)(followed)
  • Larson v. Department of State, 565 F.3d 857, 862 (D.C. Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Cornucopia Institute v. Agricultural Marketing Service, 312 F. Supp. 3d 85, 96 (D.D.C. 2018)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 23.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…