Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00080/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00080-3/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

STAR PUBLISHING COMPANY;

TONY DAVIS,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

UNITED STATES FISH AND

WILDLIFE SERVICE; UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF

THE INTERIOR,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 13-080-TUC-CKJ 

ORDER

On July 8, 2014, Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro issued a Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 48) in which he recommended that this Court find Defendants have

complied with their obligations under the Freedom of Information Act. Plaintiffs have filed

an Objection and Defendants have filed a response.

I. Report and Recommendation

The magistrate judge summarized the procedural history of the case, including the

additional proceedings since this matter was referred back to the magistrate judge for further

proceedings. The magistrate judge found the current redacted version of Document Three

(Interview Transcript) and Document Five sufficiently protect privacy interests without

redacting additional non-identifying material. The magistrate judge stated Defendants have

provided a copy of the final redactions to Plaintiffs.

Case 4:13-cv-00080-CKJ-DTF Document 51 Filed 09/05/14 Page 1 of 3
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 -

II. In Camera Review

The Court has reviewed the documents that are the subject of this litigation. As stated

by the magistrate judge, the magistrate judge forwarded these documents and the emails

between the magistrate judge and counsel for Defendants to this Court.

III. Privacy Interests – Names of Public Officials and Other Private Individuals

Plaintiffs again argue the names of employees of the United States Fish and Wildlife

Service ("Service") involved in the Macho B case should be disclosed in Document Three

and Document Five. Indeed, Plaintiffs argue that additional transparency is needed because

the Document Three transcript shows that an Arizona Game and Fish Department (“AGFD”)

“is at least as concerned how state and federal officials manage the ‘story’ of the capture and

death of ‘Macho B” as finding out what happened.” Objection , Doc. 49, p. 2. Further,

Plaintiffs incorporate previous arguments they have made.

In “balanc[ing] the privacy interests of the individuals protected against the public

interest at stake[,]” Rosenfeld v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 57 F.3d 803, 808 (9th Cir. 1995), the

Court considers that the public interest in the disclosure of the names and identifying

information does not greatly advance the public interest and the disclosure of names and

identifying information will not appreciably further the public's right to monitor Defendants'

actions. However, the disclosure of the names and identifying information would constitute

a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy under 5 U.S.C. § 522(b)(6) and could reasonably

be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under 5 U.S.C. §

552(b)(7). See Lahr v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964, 975-77 (9th Cir. 2009) (a

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

them in conjunction with a criminal inquiry; 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[;] persons “retain

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

Case 4:13-cv-00080-CKJ-DTF Document 51 Filed 09/05/14 Page 2 of 3
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 -

events”); Hunt v. F.B.I., 972 F.2d 286, 289 (1992). The Court again finds the disclosure of

the names and identifying information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of

privacy under 5 U.S.C. § 522(b)(6) and could reasonably be expected to constitute an

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 48) is ADOPTED.

2. The Court finds Defendants have complied with their obligations under the

Freedom of Information Act and need not further redact the documents at issue.

3 The Court’s staff shall return the in camera documents (discussed in this Order

and the Court’s April 23, 2014, Order) and the emails between the magistrate judge and

Defendants’ counsel to counsel for Defendants. Counsel for Defendants shall retain the

documents for any appellate review.

4. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and shall then close its file in this

matter.

DATED this 3rd day of September, 2014.

Case 4:13-cv-00080-CKJ-DTF Document 51 Filed 09/05/14 Page 3 of 3