Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-97-05153/USCOURTS-caDC-97-05153-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued May 11, 1998 Decided July 7, 1998

No. 97-5153

John G. Spirko, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

United States Postal Service,

Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 96cv00458)

Dale A. Baich, Assistant Federal Public Defender for the

District of Arizona, argued the cause and filed the briefs for

appellant.

Charles F. Flynn, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the

cause for appellee, with whom Wilma A. Lewis, U.S. Attorney, and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, were

on the brief.

USCA Case #97-5153 Document #364678 Filed: 07/07/1998 Page 1 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: Henderson, Rogers and Garland, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Rogers.

Rogers, Circuit Judge: The main issue in this appeal is

whether the district court abused its discretion in conducting

an in camera inspection of documents requested under the

Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. s 552 (1994) ("FOIA"),

without first ordering the agency to produce a more detailed

description of the withheld documents in accordance with

Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973). John G.

Spirko, Jr., appeals from the grant of summary judgment to

the United States Postal Service in his FOIA action, contending that the Postal Service did not satisfy its obligation under

Vaughn to justify its decision to withhold requested documents, and that the district court erred by reviewing the

documents in camera rather than ordering further Vaughn

indexing by the agency. Spirko also contends that the district court, after conducting its in camera inspection, erred in

finding that certain documents were properly withheld pursuant to Exemption 7(C) of FOIA, which allows agencies to

withhold documents compiled for law enforcement purposes

whose disclosure "could reasonably be expected to constitute

an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C.

s 552(b)(7)(C). Alleging that the Postal Service withheld

exculpatory evidence during his criminal trial and engaged in

other wrongdoing, he contends that the public interest in

exposing this misconduct is sufficient to remove the documents from Exemption 7(C). We find no abuse of discretion

by the district court in deciding that in camera review would

provide the most expeditious and fair resolution of Spirko's

FOIA request. Furthermore, we agree with the district

court that the requested documents are unrelated to Spirko's

allegations of agency misconduct and, therefore, the documents were properly withheld under Exemption 7(C). Accordingly, we affirm.

I.

In 1984, John Spirko was convicted in a state court for the

abduction and murder of Betty Jane Mottinger, the Postmaster of Elgin, Ohio. One alleged co-conspirator, Delaney Gibson, Jr., was also indicted, but has yet to be tried. According

to the Postal Service, other suspects remain at large, and the

agency's criminal investigation remains open.

On March 6, 1992, Spirko requested access to documents

held by the Postal Service concerning its investigation of the

Mottinger murder. As subsequently explained in his court

pleadings, he was evidently searching for exculpatory evidence that the Postal Service allegedly withheld at his trial.

The requested records included information contained in the

"desk file" of Inspector Paul M. Hartman, the case agent for

the investigation, and forty pages of records referred to the

Postal Service by the Federal Bureau of Investigation

("FBI") for processing. After an initial determination by the

USCA Case #97-5153 Document #364678 Filed: 07/07/1998 Page 2 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

agency and an administrative appeal by Spirko, the Postal

Service eventually released approximately two hundred

pages, some of which had been redacted to protect the

identities of suspects, witnesses, and law enforcement officials.1 The released documents included all forty pages from

the FBI referral; however, the agency withheld the majority

of Inspector Hartman's desk file.

Thereafter, Spirko filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act for access to the remaining documents. The

Postal Service moved for summary judgment, relying upon a

declaration by Inspector Hartman that detailed the contents

of his desk file and justified the withholding of certain documents under various exemptions to FOIA disclosure requirements.2 Finding Inspector Hartman's declaration inadequate, Spirko moved to compel the Postal Service to submit

an index with more specific details regarding the nature and

approximate content of the withheld documents, pursuant to

Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973). The district

court denied Spirko's motion and instead, relying on Quion

__________

1 On appeal, Spirko does not challenge the propriety of the

redactions.

2 Specifically, Inspector Hartman claimed that he had properly

withheld documents from his desk file under Exemptions 7(A), (C),

(D), and (F). See 5 U.S.C. s 552(b)(7).

v. FBI, 86 F.3d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1996), ordered the Postal

Service to submit the withheld documents from Inspector

Hartman's desk file for in camera examination. After recounting the withheld documents and releasing several additional pages, the Postal Service ultimately delivered 472

pages for review by the court along with an affidavit specifying the page numbers of the documents it continued to

withhold and the claimed exemptions for each withheld page.

Following in camera review, the district court granted the

Postal Service's motion for summary judgment on all but

three pages. The court found that most of the pages were

covered by Exemption 7(C), which exempts information compiled for law enforcement purposes that "could reasonably be

expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal

privacy." 3 5 U.S.C. s 552(b)(7)(C). These pages were "comprised of hand-written notes about suspects and law enforcement records, primarily in the form of 'rap sheets,' fingerprints, and photos." The court also found that several pages

had been properly withheld under Exemption 7(F), which

covers documents whose release "could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual."

Id. s 552(b)(7)(F). Nevertheless, the district court concluded

that the government had failed to sustain its claim under

Exemption 7(D) that the release of three particular pages

might "reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a

confidential source ... [or] information furnished by a confidential source," id. s 552(b)(7)(D), and ordered the Postal

Service to make a particularized showing "as to how release

USCA Case #97-5153 Document #364678 Filed: 07/07/1998 Page 3 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

of [the] pages ... will either result in the disclosure of a

confidential source or reveal information furnished by a confidential source." Ultimately, the Postal Service released two

__________

3 The district court found that the Postal Service had failed to

sustain its claim that many of the documents fell under Exemption

7(A), which covers "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes" whose release "could reasonably be expected to

interfere with enforcement proceedings." 5 U.S.C. s 552(b)(7)(A).

These documents, however, were fully covered by Exemption 7(C).

See id. s 552(b)(7)(C).

USCA Case #97-5153 Document #364678 Filed: 07/07/1998 Page 4 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

of the pages in their entirety and the third in redacted form,

and the district court upheld the redactions as proper.

Spirko moved to amend or alter the judgment, pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), asserting that he could

provide new evidence of wrongdoing by the Postal Service in

the investigation of the Mottinger murder and his subsequent

prosecution. Spirko claimed that the Postal Service had

withheld exculpatory evidence from him during the course of

his criminal trial, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.

83 (1963), and also alluded to other instances of misconduct at

the Cleveland, Ohio, Post Office that had been a subject of

congressional investigation. This evidence of wrongdoing,

Spirko argued, supported his claim that releasing the documents withheld under Exemption 7(C) would promote the

public interest by "shedding light on the improper operations

and questionable investigative activities" of the Postal Service. The district court agreed that this was "new evidence"

but, relying on its prior in camera inspection of the disputed

documents, stated that the documents "do not confirm or

refute the allegations of government misconduct." Thus, the

court found no reason to alter its ruling that the withholding

was proper.

II.

Spirko's primary contention on appeal is that the district

court erred by conducting an in camera review of the withheld documents without first requiring a more detailed affidavit from the Postal Service. He maintains that an in camera

inspection is not an adequate substitute for a sufficient

Vaughn index, see Schiller v. NLRB, 964 F.2d 1205, 1209

(D.C. Cir. 1992); Lykins v. United States Dep't of Justice,

725 F.2d 1455, 1463 (D.C. Cir. 1984), and that we should

remand this case to the district court with instructions to

order the Postal Service to submit a more detailed index.

In 1974, Congress amended FOIA to authorize district

courts to "examine the contents of" requested records "in

camera to determine whether such records or any part thereof shall be withheld." 5 U.S.C. s 552(a)(4)(B). This court

has repeatedly explained that "[t]he decision whether to

perform in camera inspection is left to the 'broad discretion

of the trial court judge.' " Lam Lek Chong v. DEA, 929 F.2d

729, 735 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (quoting Carter v. United States

Dep't of Commerce, 830 F.2d 388, 392 (D.C. Cir. 1987));

accord Quion, 86 F.3d at 1227; Center for Auto Safety v.

EPA, 731 F.2d 16, 25 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we

review the district court's decision to inspect the documents

in camera only for abuse of discretion. See Armstrong v.

Executive Office of the President, 97 F.3d 575, 577-78 (D.C.

Cir. 1996); Center for Auto Safety, 731 F.2d at 22.

Spirko contends that the district court abused its discretion

by resorting to in camera review so hastily. By inspecting

the documents in camera instead of ordering the government

USCA Case #97-5153 Document #364678 Filed: 07/07/1998 Page 5 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

to submit a properly detailed index, Spirko contends, the

court risks relieving the government of its obligations under

Vaughn, eliminating the adversary role of the requester in

defining the nature of the documents sought, and placing an

undue burden on judicial resources. See Quion, 86 F.3d at

1228; Lykins, 725 F.2d at 1463; Vaughn, 484 F.2d at 824-25.

Thus, Spirko warns, the district court in the instant case

"may have sanctioned a procedure which will encourage the

government to file less-than-sufficient Vaughn indices" and

relieve the burden on government agencies to analyze and

justify the nondisclosure of withheld information. See 5

U.S.C. s 552(a)(4)(B); Lykins, 725 F.2d at 1463; Vaughn,

484 F.2d at 825-26.

Unlike the instant case, FOIA requesters commonly appeal

a district court's refusal to inspect documents in camera

despite the alleged insufficiency of the Vaughn index. See,

e.g., PHE, Inc. v. Dep't of Justice, 983 F.2d 248, 251-53 (D.C.

Cir. 1993); Lam Lek Chong, 929 F.2d at 735; Carter, 830

F.2d at 392-94. The requester usually prefers such an

examination since the alternative is the district court's sole

reliance on the affidavits and descriptions of the agency.

Indeed, on occasion this court has remanded FOIA cases to

the district court for failing to conduct an in camera examination. See, e.g., Quion, 86 F.3d at 1232; PHE, Inc., 983 F.2d

at 253; Allen v. CIA, 636 F.2d 1287, 1299-1300 (D.C. Cir.

USCA Case #97-5153 Document #364678 Filed: 07/07/1998 Page 6 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1980). In doing so, the court has specifically noted "that in

camera inspection may be particularly appropriate when either the agency affidavits are insufficiently detailed to permit

meaningful review of exemption claims or there is evidence of

bad faith on the part of the agency," when the number of

withheld documents is relatively small, and "when the dispute

turns on the contents of the withheld documents, and not the

parties' interpretations of those documents." Quion, 86

F.3d at 1228; see also Carter, 830 F.2d at 392-93. These

factors identify circumstances under which it would be error

for the district court not to review the documents in camera,

but they do not present the only circumstances under which

the district court may do so. As the court explained in Ray

v. Turner, 587 F.2d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (per curiam), "[i ]n

camera inspection does not depend on a finding or even

tentative finding of bad faith. A judge has discretion to order

in camera inspection on the basis of an uneasiness, on a

doubt that he wants satisfied before he takes responsibility

for a de novo determination." Id. at 1195. "The ultimate

criterion is simply this: Whether the district judge believes

that in camera inspection is needed in order to make a

responsible de novo determination on the claims of exemption." Id. Thus, "in cases in which a look at the withheld

material itself would be useful, we have fully approved in

camera examination of the withheld material by the trial

court." Lykins, 725 F.2d at 1463.

With such broad discretion vested in the district court, this

court has yet to identify particular circumstances under which

in camera inspection would be inappropriate, although several concerns counsel against hasty resort to in camera review:

"in camera review should not be resorted to as a matter of

course, simply on a theory that 'it can't hurt.' " Quion, 86

F.3d at 1228 (quoting Ray, 587 F.2d at 1195); see also PHE,

Inc., 983 F.2d at 253. Not only may in camera inspection

place a substantial burden on judicial resources, see Quion,

86 F.3d at 1228; Allen, 636 F.2d at 1298; Vaughn, 484 F.2d

at 825, but when the agency has not satisfied its Vaughn

indexing duties, in camera review also "deprives the FOIA

requester of an opportunity to present his interpretation of

USCA Case #97-5153 Document #364678 Filed: 07/07/1998 Page 7 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the withheld documents," Quion, 86 F.3d at 1228. Indeed,

absent some "adversary testing," the district court may be at

a disadvantage in evaluating the government's characterizations of the withheld documents. Vaughn, 484 F.2d at 825,

828; see also Lykins, 725 F.2d at 1463. Furthermore, this

court has expressed concern "that a decision based on an in

camera review may have little precedential value," Quion,

86 F.3d at 1228, and may not be amenable to meaningful

review by an appellate court. See Vaughn, 484 F.2d at 825;

cf. Summers v. Department of Justice, 140 F.3d 1077, 1080-

81 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

Consequently, this court has repeatedly observed that a

district court should not undertake in camera review of

withheld documents as a substitute for requiring an agency's

explanation of its claimed exemptions in accordance with

Vaughn. See, e.g., PHE, Inc., 983 F.2d at 253; Schiller, 964

F.2d at 1209; Lykins, 725 F.2d at 1463. The district court

"should first offer the agency the opportunity to demonstrate,

through detailed affidavits and oral testimony, that the withheld information is clearly exempt and contains no segregable, nonexempt portions." Allen, 636 F.2d at 1298. The

agency must provide a Vaughn affidavit explaining its reasons for withholding the documents so as to alert the FOIA

requester to the nature of the documents and the claimed

exemptions and allow the requester to challenge the agency's

assertions. If the agency fails to provide a sufficiently detailed explanation to enable the district court to make a de

novo determination of the agency's claims of exemption, the

district court then has several options, including inspecting

the documents in camera, requesting further affidavits, or

allowing the plaintiff discovery. See id.

Here, the Postal Service submitted a declaration from the

inspector in charge of the Mottinger investigation. Inspector

Hartman's declaration placed the withheld documents in

three general categories: (1) suspect files, (2) letters from a

confidential informant unrelated to the Mottinger case, and

(3) fingerprints and palm prints of former suspects. Only the

first category required further elaboration. According to

Inspector Hartman's declaration, the suspect files contained

USCA Case #97-5153 Document #364678 Filed: 07/07/1998 Page 8 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

information pertaining to suspects and former suspects including

information supplied by local and state law enforcement

agencies ..., narratives and computer generated printouts of criminal activity of former suspects, photographs

of former suspects, criminal histories and descriptions of

suspects and former suspects, an interview of a former

suspect pertaining to other unrelated crimes, and inspectors' notes containing information from state, local, and

federal law enforcement agencies pertaining to suspects

and former suspects.

All of the information contained in these documents pertained

to unrelated crimes committed by suspects other than Spirko.

In his declaration, Inspector Hartman claimed that these

documents were exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemptions 7(A), (C), (D) and (F) and discussed, in general terms,

the reasons why the documents fell under each exemption. A

subsequent affidavit filed by the Postal Service at the time of

its in camera submission listed the specific page numbers of

the documents completely withheld from Inspector Hartman's

desk file and the exemptions claimed for each page.

Under Vaughn, the government is required to provide a

detailed index to the requester "itemizing each item withheld,

the exemptions claimed for that item, and the reasons why

the exemption applies to that item." 4 Lykins, 725 F.2d at

1463 (citing Vaughn, 484 F.2d at 827-28); see also Summers,

140 F.3d at 1080. Spirko claims that the Postal Service's

filings do not pass muster under this standard, but we find

that the Postal Service's submissions were detailed enough

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding

that it could inspect the disputed documents in camera

without ordering further Vaughn indexing. Although Inspector Hartman's declaration is fairly sweeping in its descriptions, when coupled with the Postal Service's subsequent

affidavit, it sufficiently explains the contents of the withheld

__________

4 The form of the Vaughn index is unimportant and affidavits

providing similar information can suffice. See Gallant v. NLRB, 26

F.3d 168, 172-73 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Lykins, 725 F.2d at 1463.

documents, the exemptions claimed for each page, the reasons

for those exemptions, and the fact that none of the documents

are segregable.5 Cf. Gallant v. NLRB, 26 F.3d 168, 173 (D.C.

Cir. 1994); Lykins, 725 F.2d at 1463.

Spirko's objections to the district court's decision to inspect

the documents in camera are unconvincing. First, he characterizes Inspector Hartman's affidavit as conclusory and

vague, yet he does not indicate what more the Postal Service

could have stated without revealing the information it sought

to protect. Clearly, "there are occasions when extensive

public justification would threaten to reveal the very information for which a FOIA exemption is claimed," particularly in

the context of law enforcement records. Lykins, 725 F.2d at

1463. Moreover, Spirko has failed to indicate how additional

USCA Case #97-5153 Document #364678 Filed: 07/07/1998 Page 9 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

information could have provided further support for his arguments before the district court or altered his response to the

agency's claimed exemptions.6 Without suggesting how he

has been harmed by the insufficiency of the Postal Service's

Vaughn filings, we have no basis to conclude that Spirko's

participation in the adversary process was compromised.

Spirko also maintains that the district court should not

have assumed the burden of reviewing the disputed documents in camera. The district court concluded, however,

that its review of the withheld documents would not burden

__________

5 We do not decide whether the Postal Service's submissions

would have been sufficient for the district court to make a de novo

determination on the claimed exemptions without in camera inspection of the documents.

6 At oral argument, counsel for Spirko suggested that a more

detailed Vaughn index could have indicated the number of suspects

and witnesses mentioned in the withheld documents, their activities,

and the precise number of pages that were comprised solely of

fingerprints or palm prints. Even if such detailed information

would normally have been included in the Postal Service's Vaughn

index, Spirko has not explained how such information would have

helped his case or aided the district court in evaluating the agency's

claimed exemptions.

USCA Case #97-5153 Document #364678 Filed: 07/07/1998 Page 10 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

judicial resources; indeed, it stated that the alternative--

further Vaughn indexing--would not advance the "just,

speedy and inexpensive determination" of the case. Although

the documents totaled 472 pages, the vast majority consisted

of easily perused fingerprints, palm prints, photographs, and

criminal "rap sheets" of suspects and former suspects. Only

a few pages contained handwritten notes or telephone messages that could require careful review by the district court.

Under the circumstances, the district court acted within its

discretion in denying Spirko's motion for further Vaughn

indexing and proceeding instead to an in camera inspection of

the documents. Cf. Lykins, 725 F.2d at 1464.

III.

Spirko's challenge to the district court's finding that the

bulk of the withheld documents had properly been withheld

under Exemption 7(C) of FOIA merits only brief discussion.

This court reviews de novo a "grant of summary judgment in

favor of an agency which claims to have complied with

FOIA," Nation Magazine v. United States Customs Serv., 71

F.3d 885, 889 (D.C. Cir. 1995), and we have no occasion to

disagree with the district court's decision to grant summary

judgment to the Postal Service.

Under Exemption 7(C), which covers "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes" whose disclosure

"could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted

invasion of personal privacy," 5 U.S.C. s 552(b)(7)(C), an

agency can withhold information "if the privacy interest at

stake outweighs the public's interest in disclosure." Nation

Magazine, 71 F.3d at 893; accord United States Dep't of

Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489

U.S. 749, 762, 776 (1989). Furthermore, this court has held

that "when ... governmental misconduct is alleged as the

justification for disclosure, the public interest is 'insubstantial'

unless the requester puts forward 'compelling evidence that

the agency denying the FOIA request is engaged in illegal

activity' and shows that the information sought 'is necessary

in order to confirm or refute that evidence.' " Davis v.

USCA Case #97-5153 Document #364678 Filed: 07/07/1998 Page 11 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Dep't of Justice, 968 F.2d 1276, 1282 (D.C. Cir.

1992) (quoting Safecard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197,

1205-06 (D.C. Cir. 1991)).

After performing the balancing analysis appropriate under

Exemption 7(C), the district court found that the documents

for which the Postal Service claimed the exemption--452 of

the 472 pages submitted for in camera inspection--were

properly withheld from disclosure. The district court recognized the strong privacy interests of the suspects and law

enforcement officers identified in the withheld documents and

found that Spirko had failed to assert any "clear public

interest consideration to weigh against" these interests.

Spirko then offered "new evidence" of agency wrongdoing as

a justification for disclosure, but the district court found that

this evidence did not alter the balance, for none of the

requested documents either confirmed or refuted Spirko's

"allegations of government misconduct." Cf. id. at 1282.

Upon our de novo review of the documents submitted in

camera, we agree with the district court. The vast majority

of withheld pages consist of fingerprints, palm prints, photographs of former suspects, and computerized printouts of

their criminal histories. The documents also include notes or

phone messages concerning witnesses, suspect interviews,

and discussions with law enforcement officers. None of the

materials relate to the exculpatory information that Spirko

claims was wrongfully withheld from him. Neither do they

have any bearing on other alleged instances of misconduct by

the Postal Service. All this was clearly and correctly explained in the district court's memorandum opinion. Hence,

Spirko's challenge to the district court's determination that

the Postal Service properly withheld 452 pages under Exemption 7(C) is to no avail.

Accordingly, because the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Spirko's motion for further Vaughn

indexing and conducting an in camera review of the documents withheld from Inspector Hartman's desk file, and

because the district court properly determined that ExempUSCA Case #97-5153 Document #364678 Filed: 07/07/1998 Page 12 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

tion 7(C) barred disclosure of the bulk of these documents, we

affirm the judgment.7

__________

7 At oral argument and in a post-argument submission, Spirko

contended that the district court erred by approving the Postal

Service's withholding of entire documents without making specific

findings as to whether each document contained segregable portions

that could be released. See Powell v. United States Bureau of

Prisons, 927 F.2d 1239, 1242 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Spirko, however,

never squarely presented this argument in any of his briefs and

therefore failed to raise it properly for review. See Carducci v.

Regan, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1983); see also Fed. R. App. P.

28(a)(6). In any case, we agree with the district court's explicit

statement that the withheld documents are not segregable because

their "nature ... does not allow for effective redaction."

USCA Case #97-5153 Document #364678 Filed: 07/07/1998 Page 13 of 13