Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00080/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00080-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Right to Privacy Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Star Publishing Company; Tony Davis, 

Plaintiffs, 

v.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service;

United States Department of the Interior, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-00080-TUC-CKJ (DTF)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendants United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“the Service”) and United States

Department of the Interior (“Interior Department”) have filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment (“Defs.’ MSJ”), a Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine

Dispute (“DSOF”), and Defendants’ Vaughn Index. (Doc. 22-23). Plaintiffs Star Publishing

Company (“Star”) and Tony Davis (“Davis”) have filed a Cross-Motion for Summary

Judgment,RequestforInCameraReview andResponse in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion

for Summary Judgment(“Pls.’ MSJ”) and a Controverting Statement of Facts (“PSOF”) (Doc.

24-25). Defendants have filed a Response to Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary (“Defs.’

Resp.”) and a Response to Plaintiffs’Controverting Statement of Facts(“Defs.’ Resp. SOF”).

(Doc. 26-27). Plaintiffs have filed a Reply (“Pls.’ Reply”). (Doc. 28). This matter has been

referred to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 14, 29). 

Case 4:13-cv-00080-CKJ-DTF Document 36 Filed 02/07/14 Page 1 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its independent review of

the record, enter an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment and granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for

Summary Judgment. 

I. BACKGROUND FACTS

On May 26, 2011, Marion D. Dean, a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”)

Coordinator for the Service, received Davis’ electronic FOIA request for “access to and

copies of all reports, memos, emails, correspondence and other records, printed and

electronic, in the service’s possession, concerning the just completed criminal investigation

into the capture and death of the jaguar Macho B in southern Arizona that occurred in

February and March 2009.” (DSOF ¶¶ 1-2, Dean Decl. ¶ 3). Davis clarified that he was

requesting “the entire criminal investigative report done by the services’s Office of Law

Enforcement.” (DSOF ¶ 2, Dean Decl. ¶ 3). Davis’ request was forwarded to Service officials

overseeing law enforcement activities throughout the agency’s Southwest Region who

interpreted the request as seeking all documents contained in investigative case file

#2009201972. (DSOF ¶¶ 3-4, Dean Decl. ¶ 5). On or about February 17, 2012, Dean

completed her review of some 3,661 pages of documents and mailed a redacted version of the

requested file to Davis with a cover letter that explained why certain documents had been

exempted under various FOIA provisions and informed Davis of his appeal rights. (DSOF

¶ 10, Dean Decl. ¶ 10). Of the 3,661 pages of documents, 226 pages were withheld in their

entirety. (Id.). Plaintiffs appealed through Department of the Interior administrative

procedures but their appeal was subsequently closed as superseded by the present litigation.

(DSOF ¶¶ 12-14). 

Defendants have provided a Vaughn Index to establish that FOIA exemptions were

applied in a reasonable manner. (Id. ¶¶ 15-16). Defendants recently released additional

documents described in the Vaughn Index. (Defs.’ Resp. SOF at 4, ¶¶ 2-4). These documents

are the Macho B Investigative Report of the Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of

Case 4:13-cv-00080-CKJ-DTF Document 36 Filed 02/07/14 Page 2 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 3 -

the Interior; the redacted procurement solicitation, a single page from a transcript, and a twopage email; and two redacted interviews, a single page map and a page identifying research

projects. (Id.). 

Plaintiffs have filed a Complaint for Injunctive Relief asking that Defendants be

enjoined from withholding the requested records and ordered to produce the records for

inspection and copying. (Doc. 1, Compl.).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the

light most favorable to the non-moving party. Summary judgment is appropriate if “the

movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A material fact is one “that

might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law[.]” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The non-moving party may not merely rest on its pleadings

but it must identify specific facts that show a genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256-57. These standards apply where

the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Fair Hous. Council of Riverside

Cnty., Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2001). The court considers each

motion separately under the applicable standard of review. Id.

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the ground that the decision to

withhold certain documents in their entirety and to redact portions of other documents is

supported by appropriate exemptions based on 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). (Defs.’ MSJ at 3).

Plaintiffs in their cross-motion for summary judgment contend that Defendants have failed

to meet their burden that the withheld information is exempted under FOIA and therefore

Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Pls.’ MSJ at 7). 

“FOIA was enacted to facilitate public access to government records.” Forest Serv.

Employees for Envtl. Ethics v. U. S. Forest Serv., 524 F.3d 1021, 1023 (9th Cir. 2008 (citing

Case 4:13-cv-00080-CKJ-DTF Document 36 Filed 02/07/14 Page 3 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 4 -

John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, 151 (1989)). FOIA serves “‘to pierce the

veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.’” Id.

(quoting Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976)). Under FOIA, there are nine

enumerated exemptions that allow the government to withhold documents or portions of

documents. Lahr v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964, 973 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 5

U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)-(9)). When an agency invokes a statutory exemption as justification for

the withholding of requested documents or portions of documents, the agency “bears the

burden of demonstrating that the exemption properly applies to the documents.” Id. (citing

U.S. Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 173 (1991)). 

In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate in a FOIA case, the district

court must first have an adequate factual basis for the determination. Lissner v. U.S. Customs

Serv., 241 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir. 2001). If there is an adequate factual basis, the district

court may then determine whether a FOIA provision exempts the document from disclosure.

Id. Because FOIA indicates a “‘strong presumption in favor of disclosure,’” the Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that “‘its exemptions are to be interpreted narrowly.’”

Lahr, 569 F.3d at 973 (citing Ray, 502 U.S. at 173; Assembly of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of

Commerce, 968 F.2d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

The government may not respond to a FOIA request with boilerplate or conclusory

statements; rather, it must provide “tailored reasons.” Shannahan v. IRS, 672 F.3d 1142,

1148 (9th Cir. 2012). The court “accord[s] substantial weight to an agency’s declarations

regarding the application of a FOIA exemption.” Id. (citing Hunt v. CIA, 981 F.2d 1116,

1119-20 (9th Cir. 1992)). Defendants have provided a Vaughn Index along with their Motion

for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 22-2, Vaughn Index). A Vaughn Index generally includes

“detailed public affidavits identifying the documents withheld, the FOIA exemptions claimed,

and a particularized explanation of why each document falls within the claimed exemption.”

Lion Raisins v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 354 F.3d 1072, 1082 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Case 4:13-cv-00080-CKJ-DTF Document 36 Filed 02/07/14 Page 4 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Defendants also invoked the exemption found at 5 U.S.C.§ 552(b)(5) but because

Documents Three through Six of the Vaughn Index remain at issue, Defendants rely on

Exemptions 6 and 7(C). (Defs.’ MSJ at 3, 11; Defs.’ Resp. at 2). 

- 5 -

Defendants interpreted Plaintiffs’ FOIA request as asking for all files within

Investigative Case file #2009201972 which is the designated investigative file related to the

Macho B jaguar. (Defs.’ MSJ at 7; Dean Decl. ¶ 5). Plaintiffs have not challenged

Defendants’ interpretation of Davis’ FOIA request. According to the Defendants, “[t]his file

contained paper files, electronic document files, and e-mail systems of individual employees

who had previous involvement with topics mentioned in the FOIA request . . . including the

records of employees who were likely to originate and/or retain records responsive to the

request.” (Defs.’ MSJ at 7). 

With respect to the documents or portions of documents withheld, Defendants have

invoked the FOIA exemptions found at 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b) (6) and 7(C), which provide as

follows: 

This section does not apply to matters that are - -

(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which

would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only

to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or

information . . . (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6), (b)(7)(C).1

“Exemptions 6 and 7(C) speak of an “‘unwarranted’” invasion of personal privacy, not

any invasion.” Lahr, 569 F.3d at 973. “Exemption 6 was ‘intended to cover detailed

Government records on an individual which can be identified as applying to that individual.’”

Prudential Locations LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., 739 F.3d 424, 429 (9th Cir.

2013) (quoted citation omitted). “[A]n agency must show that ‘some nontrivial privacy

interest’ is at stake.” Id. at 430 (quoting U.S. Dep’t of Def. v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487, 501

(1994)). Exemption 7(C) generally encompasses concerns relating to “‘an individual’s control

Case 4:13-cv-00080-CKJ-DTF Document 36 Filed 02/07/14 Page 5 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 6 -

of information concerning his or her person’” and an “‘interest in keeping personal facts away

from the public eye.’” Lahr, 569 F.3d at 974 (quoting U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters

Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 763, 769 (1989)). Exemption 6 limits the

protection to information that “would constitute” an unwarranted invasion of privacy while

Exemption 7(C) prevents disclosure of information that “could reasonably be expected to

constitute” an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Lahr, 569 F.3d at 974. 

A person’s privacy interest is highest when disclosure would reveal information

collected about them in conjunction with a criminal inquiry, especially if their connection to

the investigation was due to “mere happenstance.” Id. at 975 (citing Favish, 541 U.S. at

166). Protection from unwanted contact such as by media entities and commercial solicitors

“facilitated by disclosure of a connection to government operations and investigations is a

cognizable privacy interest under Exemptions 6 and 7( C).” Id. at 975-76. Agents also “retain

an interest in keeping private their involvement in investigations of especially controversial

events.” Id. at 977. 

Both exemptions require the court to “balance the privacy interest protected by the

exemptions against the public interest in government openness that would be served by

disclosure.” Id. at 973-74. As for the nature of the relevant public interest served by

disclosure, the Ninth Circuit in Lahr explained the Supreme Court’s clarification of the issue

as follows:

Once the government has identified a cognizable privacy interest, “‘the only

relevant public interest in the FOIA balancing analysis is the extent to which

disclosure of the information sought would shed light on an agency’s

performance of its statutory duties or otherwise let citizens know what their

government is up to.’” Bibles v. Or. Natural Desert Ass’n, 519 U.S. 355, 355-

56 (1997) (per curiam) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).

Where there are relevant privacy interests at stake, a requester must

demonstrate that the interest served by disclosure ‘is a significant one, an

interest more specific than having the information for its own sake,’ and that

disclosure is likely to advance that interest. [Nat’l Archives & Records Admin.

v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 172 (2004)]. Where the public interest advanced is that

officials were negligent or that they otherwise improperly performed their

duties, the requester must establish ‘more than a bare suspicion’ of wrongdoing,

by ‘produc[ing] evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person

Case 4:13-cv-00080-CKJ-DTF Document 36 Filed 02/07/14 Page 6 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 7 -

that the alleged Government impropriety might have occurred.’” [Favish, 541

U.S. at 174].

Lahr, 569 F.3d at 974.

A. The privacy interest and the public interest

1. Privacy Interest

Defendants contend that in applying Exemption 7(C) to all records to the extent that

they were not segregable, Defendants determined that the privacy interests of third parties,

the witnesses, and investigators to be strong. Furthermore, these individuals have the right

to be free from unwarranted invasions of privacy and revealing names and identifying

information could expose them to unwanted harassment, annoyance, harm and derogatory

publicity because of their connection to the Macho B jaguar investigation. (Defs.’ MSJ at 10).

Defendants considered that revealing the names and identifying information would shed very

little light on government operations. (Id.). 

2. Public Interest

Plaintiffs contend that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests

due to the credible evidence of wrongdoing and criminal misconduct by the Service. (Pls.’

MSJ at 10-14). Plaintiffs’ evidence of wrongdoing consists of the following allegations: 

(1) information already released by the Service, the allegations by Janay Brun, an

alleged “whistleblower,” and e-mails suggest that permits held by Arizona

Game and Fish that would have allowed it to capture an endangered jaguar

under the ESA had expired (Pls.’ MSJ at 10, referring to Doc. 25, Second Davis

Decl., Ex. G); 

(2) there is significant evidence that the Service knew of the plan to capture Macho

B and did nothing to stop it based on alleged email correspondence (Pls.’ MSJ

at 10, referring to PSOF ¶ 39 & Second Davis Decl., Ex. D, Excerpts of

redacted March 18, 2010 Interview Transcript at 39-40); 

Case 4:13-cv-00080-CKJ-DTF Document 36 Filed 02/07/14 Page 7 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 Defendants state that these individuals were employed by the State of Arizona.

(Defs.’ Resp. at 5). 

- 8 -

(3) there is substantial evidence that the Service attempted to cover up its

involvement in the Macho B case based on an Arizona Congressman’s

statement criticizing the Service for “the attempt to manipulate and cover up”,

alleged actions by a certain individual, and the accusation by Service agents

that an individual had obstructed justice by concealing or destroying records

and submitting false statements to investigators (Pls.’ MSJ at 10-11, referring

to PSOF ¶¶ 42-43, 45); 

(4) an Interior Department Inspector General’s report exonerated all federal

employees regarding the Macho B incident and only two State of Arizona

employees were prosecuted (Pls.’ MSJ at 11, referring to PSOF ¶¶ 44, 46, 49,

Doc. 25, Downie Decl. ¶ 17);2

(5) investigators allegedly referred an individual for criminal prosecution but the

U.S. Attorney’s Office allegedly declined to prosecute (Pls.’ Reply at 3,

referring to Arizona Republic news articles and Doc. 25, Moeser Decl., Ex. AC); and 

(6) a witness has admitted that he or she was “‘negligent’” in failing to protect

Macho B (Pls.’ Reply at 3, referring to Doc. 25, Second Davis Decl., Ex. D,

Excerpts of redacted March 18, 2010 Interview Transcript at 63). 

Plaintiffs sum up their argument by asserting that “the public deserves to know why

Service officials were not held accountable for their actions, and why [an individual] - who

apparently still serves as the Service’s ‘Jaguar Lead’ - was not prosecuted.” (Pls.’ Reply at

3, referring to Doc. 25, Moeser Decl., Ex. C). Elsewhere in their briefing, Plaintiffs contend

that “[d]isclosure of the redacted names of public officials and witnesses involved in the

investigation would allow the Star to fully evaluate the Service’s involvement in the Macho

Case 4:13-cv-00080-CKJ-DTF Document 36 Filed 02/07/14 Page 8 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 Defendants state that on August 15, 2013, they released to Plaintiffs 35 records

described as “the same records Defendant[s] identified in its August 30, 2013 Vaughn Index

as ‘Document 1.’” (Defs.’ Resp. at 2). Pls.’ Reply at 2 states that “in light of the recent

disclosure of Document One in Defendants’ Vaughn Index, Plaintiffs seek unredacted (or

less redacted) copies of Vaughn Index Documents Three, Four, Five and Six”. Also,

Plaintiffs do not seek inspection of the draft Congressional testimony identified as Document

Two in the Vaughn Index. (Pls.’ MSJ at 6, n. 1). 

- 9 -

B investigation, from its oversight duties under the ESA to its decision not to prosecute

employees for obstructing justice.” (Pls.’ MSJ at 12). Disclosure of information would

further “allow the Star to determine whether employees accused of wrongdoing are still on

the job overseeing the agency’s endangered species program - - and to evaluate what steps the

Service has taken to avoid similar problems in the future.” (Id.). Plaintiffs also contend that

“disclosure could shed light on whether Service employees received preferential treatment.”

(Id. at 13). Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the “privacy interests are not weighty.” (Id.).

B. Defendants’ Vaughn Index and the Withheld Documents 

 Defendants’ Vaughn Index identifies six withheld documents and provides

explanations for their exemption. With respect to the subject documents, Defendants have

redacted and withheld information about family members, cell phone numbers, health

information, personal travel plans and personal email addresses as allowed under Exemption

6. (Defs.’ MSJ at 15, Dean Decl. ¶ 16 & Vaughn Index, Documents 1 and 4). Plaintiffs

acknowledge that they are not seeking to inspect private information such as phone numbers,

birth dates, employee identification numbers, medical information, and similar information.

(Pls.’ MSJ at 13). There is no disputed material issue of fact regarding the nondisclosure of

this type of personal information. 

1. Documents One and Two Are Not In Dispute

Based on the parties’ briefing, there no longer appears to be a dispute concerning

Documents One and Two.3

 Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the parties’

motions for summary judgment be denied as moot as to Documents One and Two.

Case 4:13-cv-00080-CKJ-DTF Document 36 Filed 02/07/14 Page 9 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 10 -

2. Documents Three through Six

Plaintiffs are seeking “unredacted (or less redacted) copies of Vaughn Index

Documents Three, Four, Five and Six, which include memoranda, interview transcripts,

correspondence and affidavits, including the names of all public officials mentioned in the

records and all officials accused of official misconduct.” (Pls.’ Reply at 2). Plaintiffs do “not

seek the names of the law enforcement officers who conducted the criminal investigation of

Service employees.” (Id.). 

According to Defendants, releasing Documents Three, Five and Six in a less redacted

form would reveal the identities of subjects of the investigation and the identities of low-level

government officials who were directly or indirectly involved in the investigation. (Defs.’

MSJ at 10-11; Defs.’ Resp. at 8-9). Defendants assert that segregating official information

from information with significant privacy interests was deemed untenable. (Defs.’ MSJ at 10-

11). Defendants argue that the release of Document Four would be an unwarranted invasion

of personal privacy for low-level government employees. (Defs.’ Resp. at 9).

3. Balancing the Privacy Interest and the Public interest; In Camera

Review

In exercise of its discretion, this court has examined the nondisclosed documents in

camera to determine whether the records or any part of them should be withheld. 5 U.S.C.

§ 552(a)(4)(B). Thus, the Plaintiffs’ motion for an in camera review is denied as moot. This

court has not considered whether the Defendants’ Vaughn Index was adequate in making this

decision. 

Document Three

Defendants’ Vaughn Index identifies Document Three, which is actually two

documents, as “Memo and Interview Transcript” regarding a “Request for Legal Advice”

addressed to the “State of Arizona’s Attorney General’s Office” from the “Arizona Game and

Fish Department Endangered Species Coordinator” dated March 31, 2009. (Vaughn Index

at 5). Defendants describe Document Three as follows:

Case 4:13-cv-00080-CKJ-DTF Document 36 Filed 02/07/14 Page 10 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 11 -

Request to the State of Arizona’s Attorney General’s Office for legal advice

from an Arizona Game and Fish Department Endangered Species Coordinator,

and a transcript of an interview with the author of the request. This document

was obtained by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service during the course

of its investigation. The memorandum relays details of who was involved in

the capture of the jaguar Macho B and the sequence of events. This

memorandum also describes in detail the events that transpired in a personal

and factual manner. The names of all parties related to the investigation are

intimately woven into the document and separating the identities of the parties

from the content would be untenable. The redactions of names alone would

insufficiently protect the privacy interests of the named persons, so it was

redacted in full.

(Id.)

The court finds that there is no triable issue of fact that the Interview Transcript has

been overly redacted. The purpose of the privacy exemptions is to protect the unwarranted

invasion of personal privacy, not to protect government agencies. The Magistrate Judge

recommends that Defendants provide to Plaintiffs a less redacted version of the Interview

Transcript, which does not identify any individual. Information that implicates privacy

interests of an individual should be exempted from this new disclosure, which includes the

name of the person interviewed and any other persons identified during the interview, and

information that could identify any such person. The court finds the Defendants have not met

their burden to show such disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an

unwarranted invasion of privacy under Exemptions 6 and 7(C). The court also finds the

Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show the public interest outweighs the individual

privacy rights in their identities. 

As to the Memo, the Court finds there is no triable issue of fact that it is exempt from

disclosure under Exemptions 6 and 7(C). Defendants have met their burden to show the

individual privacy interest outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The court finds the

Memo can not be redacted sufficiently to protect the privacy interests of those individuals

named in the Memo because their identities are inextricably intertwined in the content.

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the parties’ motions for summary

judgment should be granted in part and denied in part as to Document Three. Defendants’

Case 4:13-cv-00080-CKJ-DTF Document 36 Filed 02/07/14 Page 11 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 12 -

Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Memo should be granted. Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion

for Summary Judgement as to the Memo should be denied. Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for

Summary Judgement for the interview transcript should be granted to the extent that the

Defendant shall produce a less redacted version, but the identities of persons shall be

protected. 

Document Four

Document Four is identified as “Resume, Biographical Descriptions, Email”

concerning “Documents About A Subject of the Investigation” with the sender or author,

recipient, and date noted as “Various.” (Vaughn Index at 5-6). Defendants describe

Document Four as follows:

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service obtained the resume, professional

profile, and personal emails of a subject of the investigation for the purpose of

conducting an investigation. These documents are all personal in nature. For

example, some of the emails are solely about a romantic relationship and have

no bearing on the operations of the government. Releasing this information

would undoubtedly reveal the identity of the party. The redactions of names

alone would insufficiently protect the privacy interests of the named persons,

so it was redacted in full.

(Id. at 6).

The Court finds that there is no triable issue of fact that Document Four is exempt

from disclosure. These records are personal in nature and releasing the information would

reveal the identity of the person or persons and constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy

under Exemptions 6 and 7(C). The public interest served by disclosure of Document Four is

not significant. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment should be granted as to Document Four and that Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Summary Judgment should be denied. 

Document Five

Defendants have identified Document Five as an “Interview” noted as the “Jaguar

Macho B Interview” dated April 3, 2009 consisting of 61 pages. (Vaughn Index at 6).

Case 4:13-cv-00080-CKJ-DTF Document 36 Filed 02/07/14 Page 12 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 13 -

Defendants have redacted the names of the recipient and sender but have provided the

following description of Document Five:

This document is a record of an interview conducted by the United States Fish

and Wildlife Service’s Law Enforcement Office related to the jaguar Macho

B’s capture. This document contains the names of the law enforcement

officers, the scope of questions asked and responses, the identities of parties

who were either the subject of the investigation or involved in the capturing of

the jaguar. The redactions of names alone would insufficiently protect the

privacy interests of the named persons, so it was redacted in full.

(Id.).

The Court finds that there is no triable issue of fact that Document Five has been

overly redacted. As noted above, the purpose of the privacy exemptions is to protect the

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, not to protect government agencies. The

Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants provide to Plaintiffs a less redacted version

of the Interview Transcript, which does not identify any individual. Information that

implicates privacy interests of an individual should be exempted from this new disclosure,

which includes the name of the person interviewed and any other persons identified during

the interview, and information that could identify any such person. The court finds the

Defendants have not met their burden to show such disclosure could reasonably be expected

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy under Exemptions 6 and 7(C). The court also

finds the Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show the public interest outweighs the

individual privacy rights in their identities. 

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the parties’ motions for summary

judgment should be granted in part and denied in part as to Document Five. Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted to the extent that personal information

should not be disclosed and denied to the extent that a less redacted version of this record

should be disclosed. Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted to

the extent that a less redacted version of this record should be disclosed and denied to the

extent that personal information should not be disclosed. 

Case 4:13-cv-00080-CKJ-DTF Document 36 Filed 02/07/14 Page 13 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 14 -

Document Six

Document Six is identified as six pages of “Affidavits” concerning “Draft Affidavits

by Parties” with the date indicated as “Unknown.” (Vaughn Index at 6). The recipient of

Document Six is the “United States Fish and Wildlife Service” but the sender’s name is

shown as “Redacted.” (Id.) Defendants have provided the following description of

Document Six:

These documents are affidavits completed by parties who were interviewed by

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s Law Enforcement Office related

to the jaguar Macho B’s capture. These documents contain the identities of

parties who were either the subject of the investigation or involved in the

capturing of the jaguar. The redactions of names alone would insufficiently

protect the privacy interests of the named persons, so it was redacted in full.

(Id. at 7). 

The Court finds that there is no triable issue of fact that Document Six is exempt from

disclosure under Exemptions 6 and 7(C). Defendants have shown that redacting the names

of persons identified in Document Six would insufficiently protect the privacy interests of

these individuals. The public interest served by disclosure of Document Six is not significant.

The Magistrate Judge therefore recommends that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

as to Document Six should be granted and Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

should be denied. 

IV. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court,

after its independent review, enter an order granting in part and denying in part the parties’

Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. 22, 24). Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

should be granted as to the Memo contained in Document Three and as to Documents Four

and Six on the Vaughn Index as these documents have been properly exempted from

disclosure under Exemptions 6 and 7(C). Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment should

be granted as to the Interview Transcript contained in Document Three and as to Document

Five to the extent that personal information should not be disclosed. Defendants’ Motion for

Case 4:13-cv-00080-CKJ-DTF Document 36 Filed 02/07/14 Page 14 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 15 -

Summary Judgment should be denied as to the Interview Transcript contained in Document

Three and as to Document Five as these documents have been overly redacted under

Exemptions 6 and 7(C) and Defendants should disclose less redacted versions of these

documents. 

Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted as to the Interview

Transcript contained in Document Three and as to Document Five to the extent that

Defendants should disclose less redacted versions of these documents. Plaintiffs’ CrossMotion for Summary Judgment should be denied as to the Interview Transcript contained in

Document Three and as to Document Five to the extent that personal information should not

be disclosed, as to the Memo contained in Document Three, and as to Documents Four and

Six. The parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment should be denied as moot as to Documents

One and Two on the Vaughn Index. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), any party may serve and file

written objections within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the Report and

Recommendation. A party may respond to the other party’s objections within fourteen days.

No reply brief shall be filed on objections unless leave is granted by the district court. If

objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. Any objections filed should be

captioned with the following case number: CV-13-00080-TUC-CKJ. 

DATED this 7th day of February, 2014.

Case 4:13-cv-00080-CKJ-DTF Document 36 Filed 02/07/14 Page 15 of 15