really involves a situation of perception strikes me perceptions about what degree of expectation a force of a spider fire is reasonably have when they're involved with a fire fatality as far as their  by that information you don't really need to know who was there or standard here is it quote unwarranted invasion of personal privacy  exemptions seven speak for privacy of individuals who are named in law enforcement records in that case it's a much more relaxed standard as far as the ability of the agency withhold the naptimes act it's just the standard is if it could reasonably be expected that disclosure might cause an invasion of privacy it doesn't have the would cause and it doesn't have the clearly unwarranted commander hackett so we have four names that remain that apparently have been just subject to some form of disciplinary action by the agency and the others were cooperating witnesses which process to review them mistakes that do occur and to remedy those mistakes and prevent them from returning in the future through this investigative process however one of the problems that well the problem that we've noted in our briefing that will we will draw fire lines in the woods it will prevent spread of the fire in a very very aggressive manner and this culture identified repeated lee as well as the inspector general's office would have reviewed the accident not in isolation as defined as between say yes but in the context of the report well very concretely the lunatic who was doing what where and when and what their role was in the safety or the lack of safety of the one way of looking at another way of saying what is the agency doing as far as its management and its oversight that it puts these people in these places or just taken to invert that that proposition what are people doing that is right what are people doing to prevent burn overs and accidents and fatalities what benefit would accrue if we see a in the esperanza fire in california where there were five deaths last july there was another situation where a burn over was extremely commander at that moment took steps to avoid that tragedy but you know that without mentioning the names we don't know we i know it describes what they did and what happened you just don't know who they are right well that's correct but you know so that kind of comes back to why isn't that an employment issue i mean you can you can look at something whether it's right or wrong by virtue of the actions and judge the actions and it doesn't really matter with the  it doesn't matter who the people are if the same people are involved in a situation after situation or if the same people are involved to avoid avoid situations after situation and we the government we are you know are the people for the people and by the people or or that that person or that we would see that the agency is assigned people repeated we in positions that they may not be competent to deal with there were there was there was concerns that are expressed during this fire by the aviation officer that the incident commander was in over his head and those concerns were not were not attended to you know what is it about the agency's management that allows all sorts of things to occur it without knowing the names it makes it very well and makes it impossible for the public to understand certainly and i just don't buy that i mean you can read that report only know him so actually what happened and you know what bad practices occurred and what was responsible  i just don't understand what tiny little bit of extra help it is other than castigating particular individual also remember employment all well you are certainly the names have some utility because the agency wrote a report that have those names at the agency didn't feel that their names had some oversight and an analytical benefit they would have created a report with no names they would have just used the job as a nation's so certainly the agency itself believes that there's a benefit to knowing who is doing what and where and it it's especially arrogating for itself the benefits that accrue from that knowledge and providing the public from having the summer knowledge and that's what floyd is intended to prevent washington post and some others welch suggest that the personal privacy interests of the individuals are to be given very very strong attention and concern and in this particular case were i think looking at the language that those photographs should be released the supreme court reversed that and said no that the personal privacy interests of the family in that particular case were paramount  average that the the photographs of a person who killed themselves and the very graphic images that would be circulated to the media would be very traumatic if released to the public very traumatic the release would be very traumatic to the family members and when the balancing the court and stop their court the supreme court's that and balanced against the public benefit from seeing what the government is up to it tips in favor of withholding that information but the release in this particular case of the names of people presumably live in the fairly close community might potentially expose them to harassment and other kinds of activity which would be beyond what any of them should expect in terms of the way they do business well you know with all due respect i think there's a certain element of speculation in there and in fact as far as the eighteen individuals who are the cooperated with this i think that disclosure would tend to exonerate them if there's a report worse about an incident where somebody died and we know that some advantage to the practice that existed for fifty years prior to this report when all names were routinely listed in the x investigation reports and i'm not aware of a plugin of lawsuits that opened as a result of the availability of those names  people write letters to gastein that people should be fired or disciplined i don't know that would be speculation i would imagine that for the eighteen individuals who just provided their witness statements and when that report was released with their through your questions i've addressed a number of matters i would like to briefly address and i recognise i'm swimming against a strong current in this regard the argument that the stock is not even properly considered a document under exemption and we breached that fairly early so i won't spend much time on it but i want to underscore that this is a report and an incident is not a detail report on an individual and he assert the government's to apply the government we don't even get to the balancing because this is a public report about a public event about an incident that happens to many individuals and for that reason it doesn't even get even within the broad standard articulate in the washington post case it and he's also correct that the american public has a legitimate interest in knowing what went wrong here and making sure that its government takes steps to ensure that it doesn't happen again the problem with his argument as i think the court has detected is that that has already happened there have been twelve reports not just this report but what separate reports of these follow extensive reports like the failure of the forest service in this instance and what the forest service needs to do to correct it do they include names that are also in this document the ocean of this document what people were doing what people were saying well i'd like to i'd like to pursue that because that's one of the things that troubles me about your position i think i have about five of them names misunderstand that are already in the public domain and through the the incident commander that why he was the deputy commander what have you personally identifying ground with that be protected that would be an entirely different question of the answer that question might be no but what is important is that you have  a report which details what people are doing what they were saying do you think social threw him under the basket and didn't try to protect and that doesn't affect your position whatsoever i'm sorry i missed the first request the information of who was present who was working for the forest service that might be in the public domain the information let me give a very specific and graphic example that i think answers to question the information of a clue what are the two people who discovered the bodies of these four firefighters and that some of the body bags and took them down the mountain that information which is redacted in this report is not going to made available by ok that's the kind of information precisely the kind of information which we are trying to protect and that is precisely the kind of information accusation of any culpability on that's part of our privacy interest in not being associated with a tragic event like this and not be subjected to the kind of invasions of privacy which your honour's has noted of you believe that public employees have a privacy interest in their names being withheld in terms of how they were doing their jobs yes the cases are clear that although public employees may have a diminished privacy interest they still have a public interest and i want would like to get that i don't think i ever answer your honor's initial question to me about it being out in the public domain i would prefer the court been a robbery which points out cases such as some information is already out there in the public domain where is it and i get this a lot in for the cases where the plaintiff was like well we can pierce together from information is already out in the public domain to which i want to respond why are you supervisor that it was the perimeter walker the road these things so in terms of sixty one among what we have to figure out is what are the duties and responsibilities of these people and how can we make it right let me ask you a question privacy interest i don't think in just just your you know your name but it's in the context and it's a balancing test the government is not up here making any kind of an absolute argument this is a balancing test and what we have as we have a privacy issues and i think that we're all in agreement that there is some kind of privacy interest i involved here the court asked questions that were very concerned about whether these people might be used stigmatize the culmination of that and they recognized that this kind of they kept talking over again about the kind of media scrutiny that would be involved and not just totally  cases minutes i think misses a very good case because it's you don't have to have the kind of harm i think that my colleagues are is looking for people being hurt people being seriously injured in then as it was a list of people names just names of people who were plying for rafting permits on a river here in oregon i believe and this court held that releasing those names the court made the very point that we're trying to is that your understanding and it was seen by some people in any event is there or is any of that relevant to our deliberations i don't think so and i apologize i  releasing this report and the names in this report won't really accomplish what he wants to accomplish he wants to track and see whether they were involved in earlier fires or later filed will putting those names in here by themselves is not going to allow him to do that if he wants to ask the forest service what employees were involved in x fire and why far and see far how many employees were employed at the same fires he can that somebody will say well you're at least good in that case you better release it here and i don't think we want that kind of kind of culture i think this is the kind of case tragic circumstances but i think the system work and and i would ask the court to look at page forty two of my brief when it has time when it's reviewing this and see everything that was pointed out from not only this report with other reports about what went wrong here we know what went wrong it's the forest service job to fix it there's no conspiracy there's no secrets here and all we would be doing would be stigmatizing mostly bystanders in a significant way there's no legal requirement but as far as the burden of puts on the agency does venus action it inverts the burden that would be in normal civil litigation and put it on the shoulders of of mr frank kline and the not going to derive any benefit from the release the names within the four corners the document look at all these other affirmative steps you have to take to get on public benefit as a result but and that's called the derivative use innocent until the area in oil law right now as is the converse derivative harm her saying well it's not the closure of the report names it's so much would be problematic it's what other people might do if they get access to these names now it was with good for the goose is good for the gander with all due respect they can't say ever what would normally consider very low levels of the agencies hierarchy have stream discretion and responsibility for real literally life and death decisions and osha experts of record out one one three nine courts as far as the continuum of low level to high level of responsibility is really in a book in a applicable in this situation or at least if it's apply it should be applied with that kind of awareness that firefight in the forest service in the forces context is very really it attaches to information that happened after the fire and it would have there might be a valid argument as far as withholding those names because when you're doing the bouncing about what led up to this tragedy who site and who put these people in the body bags and carry them down the mountain but the issue you raise is with respect to all twenty two names you're not it's interesting that there are gradations that you are correct but i want to make clear that i'm case just argued will be submitted for