Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-05-05446/USCOURTS-caDC-05-05446-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued October 17, 2006 Decided November 21, 2006

No. 05-5446

CEI WASHINGTON BUREAU, INC.,

APPELLANT

v.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 03cv02651)

Michael Kovaka argued the cause for appellant. With him

on the briefs was Jonathan D. Hart.

Eric Fleisig-Greene, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,

argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Peter

D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth L. Wainstein,

U.S. Attorney at the time the brief was filed, and Mark B. Stern,

Attorney.

Before: RANDOLPH, GARLAND and GRIFFITH, Circuit

Judges.

Opinion for the court filed PER CURIAM.

USCA Case #05-5446 Document #1005578 Filed: 11/21/2006 Page 1 of 5
2

PER CURIAM.

The Freedom of Information Act exempts from disclosure

“personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of

which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of

personal privacy,” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), and law enforcement

records, the production of which “could reasonably be expected

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” id.

§ 552(b)(7)(C). Invoking these exemptions, the Department of

Justice denied CEI Washington Bureau’s request for certain

records relating to the incarceration of illegal aliens. CEI has

appealed from the district court’s order granting the

Department’s motion for summary judgment and denying CEI’s

cross-motion for summary judgment. CEI Wash. Bureau Inc. v.

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 404 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D.D.C. 2005). The

validity of the district court’s ruling turns on facts the parties

dispute. We hold that summary judgment therefore should not

have been granted. 

The information CEI requested relates to the State Criminal

Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). Under SCAAP, the

federal government reimburses states and localities for the costs

of incarcerating undocumented aliens convicted of at least one

felony or two misdemeanors. See BUREAU OF JUSTICE

ASSISTANCE, U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN

ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: FY 2005 GUIDELINES 8 (2005). States

and localities file reimbursement applications with the

Department’s Office of Justice Programs. For each

undocumented alien, the application must list the Alien

Registration Number, full name, date of birth, unique inmate

identifier, foreign country of birth, date taken into custody, date

released or to be released from custody, and FBI Number. See

id. at 9. CEI requested this data in order to report on the scope

and causes of what it saw as the federal government’s

dereliction in enforcing the deportation laws. The Department

USCA Case #05-5446 Document #1005578 Filed: 11/21/2006 Page 2 of 5
3

disclosed only the unique inmate identifier, foreign country of

birth, date taken into custody, and date released from custody for

each of the SCAAP records, to the extent the records contained

entries for such information. CEI Wash. Bureau, 404 F. Supp.

2d at 175 n.4. CEI’s lawsuit sought to compel the Department

to disclose the remaining fields.

Whether the Department properly applied the privacy

exemptions turns on a balance of “the individual’s right of

privacy against the basic policy of opening agency action to the

light of public scrutiny.” U.S. Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S.

164, 175 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). Against

CEI’s argument in favor of a public interest in monitoring the

federal government’s enforcement of the deportation laws, the

Department points to several privacy interests it claims the

disclosure would violate. Specifically, the disclosure of

inmates’ names, birth dates, and FBI and Alien Registration

numbers “has the potential to deeply embarrass a vast set of

individuals . . ..” Br. for Def.-Appellee 12. The SCAAP records

also apparently misidentify some individuals as undocumented

aliens. Id. at 14. The Department claims that the FBI and Alien

Registration numbers “provide a direct link to immigration and

law enforcement files that may contain sensitive and extremely

personal information” about the inmates. Id. at 22. As to CEI’s

argument that it requested data only on recent convictions and

thus would not infringe on any privacy interest in letting old

convictions fade from memory, see U.S. Dep’t of Justice v.

Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 769

(1989), the Department notes that SCAAP does not require that

convictions be recent, and that there is thus no guarantee that

only recent convictions would be disclosed in response to CEI’s

request. Br. for Def.-Appellee 16 n.3.

The parties dispute several facts material to these assertions.

According to the Department’s affidavit, there is a “possibility

USCA Case #05-5446 Document #1005578 Filed: 11/21/2006 Page 3 of 5
4

that, if the withheld information were released, certain

individuals would erroneously be identified as undocumented

aliens.” Lee Aff. ¶ 30. The Department was “advised by the

SCAAP program manager that it is not uncommon for [the

federal government] to determine that certain inmates listed by

an applicant jurisdiction are not in fact undocumented aliens.”

Id. At oral argument government counsel said that as many as

fifty percent of the inmates reported in the SCAAP records as

illegal aliens cannot be confirmed to be such. CEI’s brief claims

that the Department can redact the erroneous data, Br. of

Appellant 32; at oral argument CEI’s attorney said that the

Department already rigorously filters the SCAAP data to ensure

accuracy. A mistake in representing an inmate as an

undocumented alien may implicate privacy interests. The same

mistake may also reduce the interest in disclosure by

undermining the asserted value of the records for monitoring the

government’s enforcement of the deportation laws. The risk of

such mistakes is a fact that needs to be established before the

case can be resolved. Similarly, only at oral argument did the

parties discuss the processes by which one obtains an FBI or

Alien Registration number, how the numbers are used, and the

ways those numbers could lead to the disclosure of sensitive

information. CEI noted that Alien Registration Numbers are

available in online public databases. The Department claimed

that someone with an individual’s Alien Registration Number

could gain access to sensitive data from administrative

proceedings linked to the number. The Department also

suggested that one could find private data based on an

individual’s FBI Number by searching employment

applications. The accuracy of these factual assertions needs to

be determined before this court can decide whether the

Department properly invoked the privacy exemptions. While

we express no opinion on whether or to what extent the

Department’s assertions implicate privacy interests under the

FOIA exemptions, or, whether or to what extent the interest in

USCA Case #05-5446 Document #1005578 Filed: 11/21/2006 Page 4 of 5
5

disclosure outweighs any such interests, we conclude that

resolution of the case on summary judgment without affidavits

and evidentiary hearings sufficient to resolve the factual disputes

was error.

It is of no moment that the parties filed cross-motions for

summary judgment and that neither party explicitly argued that

there are genuine disputes about material facts. A cross-motion

for summary judgment does not concede the factual assertions

of the opposing motion. Sherwood v. Wash. Post, 871 F.2d

1144, 1147 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 1989). And the briefs and oral

argument of each party questioned the factual accuracy of the

other’s claims. Given these disputes, we are in no position to

decide the important questions this case presents. The district

court’s grant of the Department’s motion for summary judgment

is therefore vacated and the case is remanded for further

proceedings.

So ordered.

USCA Case #05-5446 Document #1005578 Filed: 11/21/2006 Page 5 of 5