Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00080/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00080-2/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, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et 

al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-0080-TUC-CKJ (DTF)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 This Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) matter is before the Magistrate Judge for 

a final in camera review of two redacted interview transcripts. The Magistrate Judge 

recommends the District Court find that Defendants have complied with the Court’s 

directive and the disclosure is sufficient. 

DISCUSSION 

 In this case, six categories of documents were originally at issue as classified on 

Defendants’ Vaughn Index. (Doc. 22, Ex. 2.) The parties filed and briefed cross-motions 

for summary judgment. (Docs. 22-28.) During that process, the parties independently 

resolved their dispute regarding Documents 1 and 2. (Doc. 36 at 9 & n.3.) After a Report 

and Recommendation, the District Judge ruled on the motions. (Doc. 43.) She entered a 

final decision as to the Memo contained in Document Three and the entirety of 

Case 4:13-cv-00080-CKJ-DTF Document 48 Filed 07/08/14 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

Documents Four and Six, but required further proceedings as to the Interview Transcript 

contained in Document Three and the entirety of Document Five.1

 With respect to Document Three (Interview Transcript) and Document Five, the 

Court ruled that “[t]he 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. § 522(b)(7).” (Doc. 43 at 7, 8.) However, the Court concluded that Defendants 

should provide less-redacted versions of these documents. Defendants were directed to 

provide the newly-redacted documents to the Magistrate Judge for further review. They 

subsquently provided the documents with an ex parte explanatory email. Taking into 

account feedback from the judge, Defendants altered the redactions and provided a 

second ex parte email discussing their decisions. After additional ex parte telephonic 

consultation with Defendants’ counsel and further revisions, the Court finds that the 

current version of Document Three (Interview Transcript) and Document Five 

sufficiently protect privacy interests without redacting additional non-identifying 

material. Defendants have provided a copy of the final redactions as reviewed by the 

Magistrate Judge to Plaintiffs. (Doc. 47.) The Magistrate Judge will provide the in 

camera documents and emails to the District Judge for review of this Recommendation.

 

1

 The Court determined that Documents Three (Memo), Four and Six were exempt from disclosure, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b) (6) and (7)(C). (Doc. 43 at 8.) Additional 

factual history and governing legal authority can be found in the Report and Recommendation and the Court’s Order. (Docs. 36, 43.) 

Case 4:13-cv-00080-CKJ-DTF Document 48 Filed 07/08/14 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

RECOMMENDATION 

 The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after a de novo, in 

camera, review, find that Defendants have complied with their obligations under FOIA. 

 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. 

 Dated this 8th day of July, 2014. 

Case 4:13-cv-00080-CKJ-DTF Document 48 Filed 07/08/14 Page 3 of 3