Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00955/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00955-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Docket No. 131.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD GEORGE,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, et al..,

Defendant. /

No. C05-0955 MJJ

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Defendant United States, Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), IRS Revenue

Officer Jane Allen, and Treasury Secretary John Snow’s (collectively “Defendants”) Motion for

Summary Judgment.1

 Plaintiff Richard George (“George” or “Plaintiff”) opposes the motion. For

the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case presents a dispute under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552

and 31 C.F.R. § 1.5. Unless otherwise noted the Court finds the following facts undisputed.

By letter dated June 30, 2005, Plaintiff made a FOIA request to the IRS. (Declaration of

Kimberly Wilson (“Wilson Decl.”) at ¶ 3.) IRS Disclosure Specialist Kimberly Wilson (“Wilson”)

was assigned to process Plaintiff’s request, collecting 5,973 pages responsive to his request. (Id. at

¶¶ 2, 9.) On June 1, 2006, Wilson sent Plaintiff a letter stating that the IRS had located and collected

Case 3:05-cv-00955-MJJ Document 136 Filed 05/14/07 Page 1 of 21
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Wilson’s letter to Plaintiff read, in part,:

In response to your request enclosed, please find 5,973 pages of documents responsive to your request.

We have with held in full 282 pages of documents and edited 36 pages of documents to delete material

pertaining to a third party pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) & in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. [§] 6103(a).

We have withheld in full 173 pages of documents and edited 15 pages of documents to delete material

pertaining to an individual their party pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3) & (b)(7)(C) in conjunction with 26

U.S.C. [§] 6103(a) & (e)(7). We have edited two pages of documents to delete the Discriminant Index

Function (DIF) score pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) & (b)(7)(E) in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. [§]

6103(b)(2). We have edited three pages of documents to delete material pertaining to a date of birth

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. [§] 552(b)(3) & (b)(6) in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a). 

Also, we have withheld in full 82 pages of documents and edited 13 pages of documents to delete material

regarding internal communications that would impair tax administration and which are part of the decision

making process. This is pursuant to 5 U.S.C. [§](b)(3) & (b)(5) in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. [§]

6103(e)(7). We have withheld in full 21 pages of documents and edited 13 pages of documents because

release could be expected to impair federal tax administration pursuant to 5 U.S.C. [§] 552(b)(3) and

(b)(7)(A) & (E) in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. [§] 6103(e)(7). We have withheld in full 37 pages of

documents and edited 100 pages of documents to delete material pertaining to invasion of personal privacy

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. [§] (b)(7)(C). Notice 393, enclosed, explains the exemptions in more detail and your

appeal rights. . . . .

(Id. at ¶ 10, Ex. B.) 

3

Wilson re-reviewed 308 pages previously withheld in full and determined that they should be released to the

Plaintiff. Wilson also determined to revise the redactions on 52 pages previously withheld in part. These documents

pertained to a corporation called Chameleon Software, in which Plaintiff has a majority interest. Defendants previously

withheld these pages because Plaintiff’s FOIA request had not met the statutory requirements to establish his right to receive

this third party tax information. However, Defendants released the 52 pages after determining that Chameleon Software was

2

5,973 pages that were responsive to his request, but that the IRS would withhold various documents

and information pursuant to various exceptions found at 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). (Id. at ¶ 10, Ex. B.)2

The IRS delivered to Plaintiff, by mail, the documents requested, subject to the limitations and

exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). (Id.) 

During the course of the litigation and in response to Plaintiff’s allegations that the IRS had

not substantively complied with Plaintiff’s FOIA request, the IRS at the request of the Assistant

United States Attorney Thomas Moore (“Moore”), reviewed the documents that had previously been

withheld to determine if additional information could be released to Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Upon

second review, Wilson determined that the IRS should release additional pages, primarily

information pertaining to Chameleon Software, to Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 13.) Those documents had

been initially withheld because Plaintiff had failed to meet the statutory requirements to establish the

right to receive third party tax information. (Id.)3

 These documents were provided to Moore who

Case 3:05-cv-00955-MJJ Document 136 Filed 05/14/07 Page 2 of 21
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

an the alter ego of Plaintiff, for purposes of tax liability, and because Plaintiff would otherwise be entitled to returns and

return information of Chameleon under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(e). 

4

Docket No. 68.

3

subsequently delivered, by mail, the documents to Plaintiff. (Id.; Declaration of Thomas Moore

(“Moore Decl.”) at ¶ 2.) After making this supplemental disclosure, of the 5,973 documents

collected by the IRS, only 257 pages continued to be withheld in full, and 215 pages continued to be

withheld in part. (Wilson Decl. at ¶ 14.) 

On September 8, 2005, Plaintiff filed his third amended complaint, which is the operative

complaint before the Court.4

 In the “First Cause of Action,” Plaintiff alleged that the IRS failed to

comply with Plaintiff’s FOIA request under Section 522. On June 15, 2006, Defendants moved for

dismissal or for summary judgment. On October 5, 2006, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss with respect to Plaintiff’s cause of action as to the substantive content of Defendants’

substantive FOIA production, but granted the motion to dismiss with regards to Plaintiff’s claim as

to the timeliness of Defendant’s initial FOIA response. Plaintiff’s claim regarding the substantive

FOIA request was therefore the only remaining claim.

Subsequently, on March 1, 2007, the Court heard oral argument on Defendants’ initial

Motion for Summary Judgment. At the hearing, the Court identified certain discrepancies in

Wilson’s declaration regarding the total number of documents alleged to have been exempted from

production and the total number of documents actually withheld. Defendants elected to withdraw

and re-file the motion without prejudice.

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ re-filed Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Defendants claim that they have cured the discrepancies in Wilson’s declaration, fully complied with

Plaintiff’s FOIA request, and that the IRS has properly withheld the remaining information pursuant

to the exceptions set forth in Section 552(b). Defendants therefore contend that they have met their

obligations under FOIA and moves for judgment as a matter of law.

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-00955-MJJ Document 136 Filed 05/14/07 Page 3 of 21
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Summary Judgment

Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes summary judgment if there is

no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The moving party bears the

initial burden of demonstrating the basis for the motion and identifying the portions of the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and admissions on file that establish the absence

of a triable issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving

party meets this initial burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to present specific

 facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324;

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). The non-movant’s

bare assertions, standing alone, are insufficient to create a material issue of fact and defeat a motion

for summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48. An issue of fact is material if, under the

substantive law of the case, resolution of the factual dispute might affect the case’s outcome. Id. at

248. Factual disputes are genuine if they “properly can be resolved in favor of either party.” Id. at

250. Thus, a genuine issue for trial exists if the non-movant presents evidence from which a

reasonable jury, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to that party, could resolve the

material issue in its favor. Id. However, “[i]f the [non-movant’s] evidence is merely colorable, or is

not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Id. at 249-50 (internal citations

omitted). 

ANALYSIS

I. The Freedom of Information Act

Procedurally, district courts typically decide FOIA cases on summary judgment before a

plaintiff can conduct discovery. Jones v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 41 F.3d 238, 242 (6th

Cir.1994). An agency defendant is entitled to summary judgment if it establishes that it has fully

discharged its obligations by proving that it has produced the requested documents or that it is

properly withholding the documents under a FOIA exemption. See Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121,

126 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Pollack v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 879 F.2d 406, 408 (8th Cir. 1989).

Case 3:05-cv-00955-MJJ Document 136 Filed 05/14/07 Page 4 of 21
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

FOIA requires, that unless an exemption applies, “each agency, upon any request for records

which (i) reasonably describes such records, and (ii) is made in accordance with published rules

stating the time, place, fees (if any), and procedures to be followed, shall make the records promptly

available to any person.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). The agency is under a duty to conduct a

“reasonable” search for responsive records using methods that can be reasonably expected to

produce the information requested to the extent they exist. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(C); See also

SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Ogleby v. United States Dept.

of the Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Zemansky v. United States EPA, 767 F.2d 569, 571

(9th Cir. 1985). An agency may prove the reasonableness of its search through affidavits of

responsible agency officials so long as the affidavits are relatively detailed, nonconclusory, and

submitted in good faith. Goland v. Central Intelligence Agency, 607 F.2d 339, 352 (D.C. Cir. 1978)

cert. denied, 445 U.S. 927 (1980) (emphasis added). The presumption of good faith accorded to

agency affidavits cannot be rebutted by the requester’s “purely speculative claims about the

existence and discoverability of other documents.” SafeCard Servs, Inc., 926 F.2d at 1200 (quoting

Ground Saucer Watch, Inc. v. CIA, 692 F.2d 770, 771 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). Similarly, an agency may

justify its claims of exemption through detailed affidavits, which are also entitled to a presumption of

good faith. See Rugeiero v. United States Dept. Of Justice, 257 F.3d 534, 544 (6th Cir. 2001);

Manna v. United States Dept. of Justice, 823 F. Supp. 866, 870, aff’d 51 F.3d 1158 (3d Cir.), cert.

denied. 516 U.S. 975 (1995) (emphasis added). 

Here, the IRS has presented the detailed declaration of Kimberly Wilson (“Wilson”), the

Disclosure Specialist in the Oakland, California office of the IRS who personally reviewed and

managed the Plaintiff’s FOIA request. Wilson has personal knowledge of the IRS’s search for

responsive documents and of the exemption claims. The Court now turns to the 5,973 documents

collected by the IRS to determine: (1) whether the IRS conducted a reasonable search and; (2)

whether the IRS had a proper basis to exempt from disclosure the 257 pages withheld in full, and the

215 pages withheld in part. (Wilson Decl. at ¶ 14.) 

A. Reasonableness of the IRS’s Search for Responsive Documents

Defendants contend that the IRS conducted a reasonable search and delivered to Plaintiff all

Case 3:05-cv-00955-MJJ Document 136 Filed 05/14/07 Page 5 of 21
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

documents requested as well as a detailed letter identifying which materials would not be disclosed. 

Defendants not only identify an absence of evidence in support of Plaintiff’s allegation of

incomplete disclosure, but also affirmatively presents declarations in support of Defendants’

contention. Specifically, Wilson’s declaration provides information that the agency located,

collected and reviewed 5,973 pages in response to Plaintiff’s request. Defendants also present the

declaration of Assistant United States Attorney Moore documenting that the non-exempt documents

were released to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ disclosure was incomplete because

they failed to produce certain documents and improperly redacted others.

In her declaration, Wilson states she has worked for the IRS for approximately fifteen years

and has thorough knowledge of the types of documents created and maintained by the various

divisions of the IRS. (Wilson Decl. ¶ 1.) She states that she personally reviewed and is familiar

with the documents at issue in this case. (Id. at ¶ 2.) In her declaration, she describes the IRS’s

computer-based method of maintaining tax records, and further describes her efforts in searching for

responsive records, which included using the IRS’s Integrated Data Retrieval System (“IDRS”),

interviewing IRS agents, contacting the IRS’s Office of Appeals, and discussing Plaintiff’s request

with the IRS’s Disclosure Office. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-8.) Upon conferring with IRS legal counsel, Wilson

re-reviewed the withheld pages and revised her disclosure by providing additional documents to

Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶ 12-13.) As a result of her investigation, Wilson collected and reviewed a total of

5,973 responsive documents, of which 257 pages were withheld in full and 215 pages were withheld

in part. (Id. at ¶ 9-10.) 

On its face, Wilson’s sworn declaration is plainly adequate to demonstrate the thoroughness

of the IRS’s search for responsive documents. The declaration gives a detailed description of the

searches undertaken, and a detailed explanation of the applicable exemptions to each category of

withheld documents. Plaintiff argues, without evidentiary support, there is reason to doubt

Defendants’ good faith and accuses the Government of using the IRS as a political weapon “to

destroy Plaintiff’s life and business” “in a concerted effort to punish Plaintiff and others for

exercising their First Amendment rights.” (Pl.’s Opp. at 2:1-11.) Because Wilson’s declaration is

sufficient to show that the IRS conducted a reasonable search, and because Plaintiff offers no

Case 3:05-cv-00955-MJJ Document 136 Filed 05/14/07 Page 6 of 21
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

competent evidence to the contrary, the Court finds that the IRS has met its statutory obligation

under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(C). Accordingly, the Court now turns to a review of Defendants’

asserted FOIA exemptions.

B. FOIA Exemptions

As previously noted, the IRS located 5,973 responsive pages. (Wilson Decl. ¶ 9.) The IRS

released all but 257 pages withheld in full and 215 pages withheld in part. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Defendants

declare that the withheld pages consist of IRS database screen printouts regarding third party

taxpayers, information regarding third party taxpayers obtained from public sources and summonses,

case history and interview notes prepared by the revenue officer, and internal IRS documents

discussing the nature of the direction of this case. Defendants argue that they properly applied the

FOIA exemptions in withholding these pages, and therefore fully discharged their statutory

obligations. In opposition, Plaintiff identifies a number of allegedly missing documents that he

claims Defendants should have produced. Plaintiff contends that the refusal to turn over these

documents evidences a failure to comply with his request. The Court will now address the

categories of the withheld documents and the applicable exemptions. 

1. Third party return information–-5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) in conjunction with

26 U.S.C. § 6103(a)

The IRS contends that it is withholding 31 pages, in part, consisting of return information

related to taxpayers other than Plaintiff. These documents are screen printouts from the IRS’s IDRS

database that contain the names, taxpayer identification numbers, addresses, and/or tax account

information of taxpayers other than Plaintiff. 

Section 552(b)(3) exempts from disclosure information that is:

Specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section

552(b) of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the

matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no

discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for

withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld.

5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3). Under this exemption, the protected material must be withheld from

disclosure if the Court determines that a relevant statute exists. See Fund for Constitutional Gov’t v.

National Archives & Records Serv., 656 F.2d 856, 868 n. 29 (D.C. Cir. 1981); Goland v. Central

Case 3:05-cv-00955-MJJ Document 136 Filed 05/14/07 Page 7 of 21
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

8

Intelligence Agency, 607 F.2d 339, 350 n. 65 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that the sole issue for

decision is the existence of a relevant statute and the inclusion of withheld material is within the

statute’s coverage). 

Here, Defendants rely on 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a), which prevents disclosure or inspection of

return information under the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”). See 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a). The IRC

does not authorize the release of third party information to Plaintiff. Rather, Section 6103(a)

provides that return information must be kept confidential unless disclosure is authorized. 

Specifically, “[§ 6103] provides that tax returns and return information of third parties (i.e., not the

requesting party) are confidential and not subject to the FOIA.” Fonzone v. Dept. of the Treasury,

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15729 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (citing United States v. Humedco Enterprises, Inc.,

512 F. Supp. 1302, 1307 (E.D. Pa. 1981)); see also Church of Scientology v. IRS, 484 U.S. 9, 10

(1987); Mason v. Callaway, 554 F.2d 129 (4th Cir. 1977), cert. denied 434 U.S. 877 (1977).

Additionally, while the third party information was located in IRS files related to Plaintiff, its

placement there does not cause it to lose its treatment as return information of the individual to

whom it relates. El-Fadly v. I.R.S., 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 24820, at *3-4 (9th Cir. 1999) In ElFadly, the Ninth Circuit stated that “[a]lthough tax returns are confidential, See 26 U.S.C. § 6103,

once tax return information enters the public domain, the taxpayer may no longer claim a right of

privacy in the information.” Id. (citing William E. Schrambling Accountacy Corp. v. United States,

937 F.2d 1485, 1490 (9th Cir. 1991)). However, placing third party return information in the file of

another taxpayer does not qualify as the public domain and the third party does not lose the right to

privacy in connection to the return information. See Fonzone, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15729. This

information is still protected by the exemption. Id. Defendants, having met their initial burden

under Rule 56, have shifted the burden to Plaintiff to present specific facts showing that there is a

genuine issue for trial. In response, Plaintiff fails to identify any support for the disclosure of this

confidential information. Accordingly, the Court finds that under Section 6103(a), the Defendant

properly redacted these 31 pages since the information is exempt from disclosure under FOIA.

2. Interview notes–-5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(5), (b)(7)(E) and (b)(3) in conjunction

with 26 U.S.C. § 6103(e)(7)

Defendants also contend they withheld 4 pages in full and 3 pages in part, consisting of

Case 3:05-cv-00955-MJJ Document 136 Filed 05/14/07 Page 8 of 21
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

9

interview notes prepared by the revenue officer in advance of her interview with Plaintiff. (Wilson

Decl. at ¶ 19.) The notes are draft questions formulated by the revenue officer to aid her in

gathering information regarding Plaintiff’s assets, business affiliations, and income sources to assist

her in collecting Plaintiff’s outstanding tax liability. (Id.) 

a. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5)

Section 552(b)(5) exempts from disclosure “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or

letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the

agency.” See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). Defendants assert that this subsection gives agencies the

privileges developed in civil litigation discovery, including the governmental privilege doctrine. See

United States v. Weber Aircraft Corp., 465 U.S. 792, 799 (1984). The governmental privilege

doctrine exempts pre-decisional materials that reflect the reflections, opinions, and analysis that

constitute the deliberative process of an agency from disclosure. See N.L.R.B v. Sears Roebuck &

Co., 421 U.S. 132, 148-49 (1975).

Defendants rely on Wilson’s declaration asserting that all of these notes were prepared in

advance of the interview with Plaintiff. (Wilson Decl. ¶ 19.) These notes and questions reflect the

pre-decisional deliberative process compiled during the course of the IRS’s investigation of Plaintiff. 

(Id.) At the time the notes were created, the IRS had not made a decision as to which collection

tools it might use or what financial sources the IRS might use to satisfy the tax obligation. (Id.) For

this reason, the Court finds that the notes constitute pre-decisional, deliberative process privilege

material exempt under Section 552(b). 

In opposition, Plaintiff makes reference to a September 2003 press conference organized by

the U.S. Treasury Department to assert that the government had instituted “enforcement actions”

against members of the “We the People’s” petitions for redress. (Pl.’s Opp. at 2:1-11.) Plaintiff

attempts, through implication, to convince the Court that the IRS had instituted actions against him

prior to the creation of the notes at issue. However, Plaintiff does not present any specific

competent evidence to support his contention. 

b. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E) 

Defendants further contend that these interview notes are exempt from disclosure under 5

Case 3:05-cv-00955-MJJ Document 136 Filed 05/14/07 Page 9 of 21
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

In Sladek v. Bensinger, the Fifth Circuit held that 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) did not apply to the DEA manual as it was

not compiled in the course of a specific investigation. See Sladek, 605 F.2d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 1979). However, the AntiDrug Abuse Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-570, amended 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E) to provide protection for law enforcement

manuals, potential guidelines, and tolerance criteria by deleting any requirement that the information be investigatory. See

also S. Rep. No. 98-221, at 23 (1983).

6

The Ninth Circuit has found that the IRS has the requisite law enforcement mandate to rely on 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7).

Lewis v. I.R.S., 823 F.2d 375, 379 (1987).

10

U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). Section 552(b)(7)(E) provides:

[R]ecords or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but

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

or information ... would disclose techniques and procedures for law

enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose

guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such

disclosure.5

5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). Defendants cite 26 U.S.C. § 7601 to support the statutory duty and powers

of investigation vested in the IRS as a “law enforcement agency.” The Supreme Court has explained

that the power of the IRS to investigate does not depend on a case or controversy for power to get

evidence, the agency can investigate “merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just

because it wants assurance that it is not.” United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57 (1964) (quoting

United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 643 (1950)). Defendants contend that documents

compiled in investigations or in civil and criminal proceedings are within the meaning of “records or

information compiled for law enforcement purposes.” See Williams v. I.R.S., 479 F.2d 317 (3d Cir.

1973).6 In order to invoke one of the exemptions found in Section 552(b)(7), the agency must

demonstrate that “the nexus between [its] activity [ ] and its law enforcement duties ‘[is] based on

information sufficient to support at least ‘a colorable claim’ of its rationality.’” Keys v. Dept. of

Justice, 830 F.2d 337, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).

The IRS has broad authority to enforce the internal revenue laws and to withhold records or

information based upon Section 552(b)(7)(E). See Buckner v. Internal Revenue Service, 25 F. Supp.

2d 893, 898-99 (N.D. Ind. 1998) (upholding Government’s determination to withhold DIF scores

and other investigative techniques as disclosure “would reveal a vulnerability in IRS procedures that

could facilitate circumvention of payment of required taxes”); Pully v. Internal Revenue Service, 939

F. Supp. 429, 438 (E.D. Va. 1996) (upholding Government’s determination to withhold discriminant

function system (“DFI”) scores); Church of Scientology Int’l v. Internal Revenue Service, 845 F.

Case 3:05-cv-00955-MJJ Document 136 Filed 05/14/07 Page 10 of 21
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Supp. 714, 722-23 (C.D. Cal. 1993) (upholding Government’s determination to withhold two pages

of the IRS’s Law Enforcement Manual and an internal agency memorandum as information

concerned procedures for handling applications for tax exemption and examinations); Small v.

Internal Revenue Service, 820 F. Supp. 163, 166 (D.N.J. 1992) (upholding Government’s

determination to withhold DIF scores and other information concerning IRS tolerances and audit

guidelines as disclosure would permit taxpayers to circumvent the tax laws by enabling them to

tailor their returns to lower their DIF scores or stay within tolerances and guidelines); O’Connor v.

United States, 698 F. Supp. 204, 206-07 (D.Nev. 1988) (upholding Government’s determination to

withhold tolerance and criteria used internally by the Service in investigations from a two-page

memorandum that contained information complied for law enforcement purposes). 

Here, Wilson’s declaration establishes that the interview notes withheld, or partially

redacted, were gathered to assist the IRS in its administration of the Internal Revenue Code. 

(Wilson Decl. at ¶ 19(b).) Wilson explains that the IRS withheld the interview notes because the

notes would reveal law enforcement techniques and provide information that would allow Plaintiff

to circumvent the internal revenue laws. On that basis, Wilson’s declaration demonstrates a

sufficient nexus between the IRS’s investigative activity of Plaintiff and its enforcement duties to

support the application of the exemption set forth in Section 552(b)(7)(E). For this additional

reason, the Court finds that the interview notes are exempt from disclosure under FOIA.

c. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103(e)(7).

Finally, Defendants contend that the interview notes are also exempt from disclosure under

Section 552(b)(3) in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103(e)(7). As noted above, Section 552(b)(3)

exempts from disclosure information that is:

Specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section

552(b) of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the

matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no

discretion on the issue, or (b) establishes particular criteria from

withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld.

5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3). Defendants contend that the Section 552(b)(3) exemption is based on 26

U.S.C. § 6103(e)(7), which prevents the disclosure or inspection of return information if such

disclosure would seriously impair federal tax administration. Section 6103(e)(7) has been found to

Case 3:05-cv-00955-MJJ Document 136 Filed 05/14/07 Page 11 of 21
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

be a statute meeting the criteria in Section 552(b)(3). See Clarkson v. IRS, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

6887 (D. S.C. May 10, 1990); Church of Scientology v. I.R.S., 792 F.2d 146, 149 (D.C.Cir. 1986);

Chamberlain v. Kurtz, 589 F.2d 827, 838-39 (5th Cir. 1979); Currie v. I.R.S., 704 F.2d 523, 531

(11th Cir. 1983). 

Here, as evidenced by Wilson’s declaration, the documents withheld were prepared by the

revenue officer in connection with the determination of what financial assets and income sources

were available to the IRS for collecting Plaintiff’s outstanding tax liability. (Wilson Decl. at ¶

19(c).) The information consists of the revenue officer’s development and analysis of information

obtained during the course of investigation. (Id.) Wilson also asserts that the release of the

interview notes would seriously impair tax administration because it would allow Plaintiff to

determine the nature, direction, scope, limits, strengths and weaknesses of the IRS’s investigation. 

(Id.) The exempted information would allow Plaintiff to alter his sources of income, assets, and

relationships with other individuals and entities in attempt to circumvent tax liability. (Id.) The

Court agrees with Defendants that the release of these documents would seriously impair federal tax

administration by releasing documents the IRS is using in its ongoing investigation. Thus, the

documents and redacted information were properly exempted from disclosure pursuant to Section

552(b)(3) in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103(e)(7). Accordingly, for this additional reason, the

Court finds that the interview notes are exempt from disclosure under FOIA.

3. Case History Notes—5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(5), (b)(7)(A), 552(b)(3), 552(b)(6),

and (b)(7)(C).

Defendant is also withholding 3 pages in full, and 28 pages in part, consisting of revenue

agent and revenue officer case history notes. (Wilson Decl. at ¶ 20.) The case history notes include

the computerized log of activity of the case, notes on contacts with Plaintiff and third parties, and the

revenue officers’ thoughts on how to proceed with the case and how to analyze the information

gathered. (Id.) Defendants contend that the case history notes are exempt from disclosure on three

grounds.

a. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) 

As noted above, Section 552(b)(5) exempts from disclosure “inter-agency or intra-agency

memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in

Case 3:05-cv-00955-MJJ Document 136 Filed 05/14/07 Page 12 of 21
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

litigation with the agency.” See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). Defendant again asserts that this subsection

gives agencies the privileges developed in civil litigation discovery, including the governmental

privilege doctrine. See Weber Aircraft Corp., 465 U.S. at 799. The governmental privilege doctrine

exempts pre-decisional materials that reflect the reflections, opinions, and analysis that constitute the

deliberative process of an agency from disclosure. See Sears Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. at 148-49. 

Defendants have adduced evidence indicating that the case history notes are pre-decisional

and reflect the agency’s deliberative process. (Wilson Decl. at ¶ 20(a).) Defendants created these

notes contemporaneously with the revenue agent and the revenue officers’ development of the case

and the content of the notes represent their thoughts and impressions of the gathered information. 

(Id.) Because Defendants have presented evidence that this information consists of the IRS’s predecisional deliberative process, the Court finds that it is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Section

552(b)(5).

b. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(A)

Defendants further contend that these revenue agent and revenue officer case history notes

are also exempt from disclosure under Section 552(b)(7)(A). Section 552(b)(7)(A) exempts from

disclosure records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes to the extent that the

production “could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.” 5 U.S.C. §

552(b)(7)(A). Defendants assert that “interference” is interpreted broadly and that a court may make

a generic determination that, with respect to certain kinds of enforcement proceedings, disclosure of

certain types of investigatory records would generally interfere with enforcement proceedings. See

Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. at 223. 

Defendants claim the disclosure or inspection of case history notes would interfere with its

enforcement proceedings since these investigatory records would reveal the identities of potential

witnesses, the nature, scope, direction and limits of the investigation, transactions being investigated

including third-party contacts, evidence obtained so far, reliance the agency places on the evidence,

and the IRS’s strategies and theories. (Wilson Decl. at ¶ 20(b).) Defendants determined the

information would interfere with their ongoing investigation since the documents could help the

Plaintiff craft defenses or explanations based on Defendants’ investigation instead of on the facts

Case 3:05-cv-00955-MJJ Document 136 Filed 05/14/07 Page 13 of 21
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

known to him. (Id.) More importantly, disclosure of the documents would assist Plaintiff in trying

to conceal or disguise his sources of income. (Id.) Any of these actions by Plaintiff would inhibit

Defendants’ ability to determine Plaintiff’s compliance with tax laws during the course of the

ongoing investigation. (Id.) Defendants provide evidence that the disclosure of this information

could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings since it would enable

Plaintiff to circumvent the IRS’s attempts to collect his tax liability in the past and into the future as

the investigation is ongoing. Accordingly, the Court finds that the case history notes are exempt

from disclosure pursuant to Section 552(b)(7)(A). 

c. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103(e)(7)

Additionally, Defendants claim the case history notes are exempt under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)

in conjunction with 25 U.S.C. § 6103(e)(7). As noted above, Section 552(b)(3) exempts from

disclosure information that is:

Specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section

552(b) of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the

matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no

discretion on the issue, or (b) establishes particular criteria from

withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld.

5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3). Defendants contend that the Section 552(b)(3) exemption is based on 26

U.S.C. § 6103(e)(7), which prevents the disclosure or inspection of return information if such

disclosure would seriously impair federal tax administration. Section 6103(e)(7) has been found to

be a statute meeting the criteria in Section 552(b)(3). See Church of Scientology v. I.R.S., 792 F.2d

146, 149 (D.C. Cir. 1986); Currie v. I.R.S., 704 F.2d 523, 531 (11th Cir. 1983). 

As evidenced by Wilson’s declaration, the documents were prepared in connection with an

IRS investigation to determine what financial assets and income sources were available to the IRS

for collecting George’s tax liability. (Wilson Decl. at ¶ 20(c).) The pages represent the agency’s

development and analysis of information gathered as part of an ongoing investigation. (Id.) The

release of these documents would seriously impair federal tax administration since it would allow

Plaintiff to determine the nature, direction, scope, limits, strengths, and weaknesses of the IRS’s

investigation. Further, the exempted information would enable Plaintiff to alter his sources of

income, assets, and relationships with other individuals and entities in an attempt to circumvent tax

Case 3:05-cv-00955-MJJ Document 136 Filed 05/14/07 Page 14 of 21
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

liability. Since the IRS has not completed its investigation nor fully collected the outstanding tax

liability it seeks from Plaintiff, the release of these documents and redacted information would

seriously impair federal tax administration. (Id.) Accordingly, for this additional reason, the Court

finds that the case history notes are exempt from disclosure under FOIA. 

d. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6)

Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of

which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” are exempt under FOIA. 

5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). Defendants claim this exemption justifies its redactions in the case history

notes of information including names, initials, and employee identification numbers of IRS

employees. Defendants argue IRS employees have a very strong interest in preventing the disclosure

of their identities to the Plaintiff because such disclosure could subject them to annoyance or

harassment in the conduct of their official duties and private lives. (Wilson Decl. at ¶ 20(d).) 

Defendants rely on an interpretation that an evaluation of the term “personnel and medical

files and similar files” does not turn upon the label of the file which contains the damaging

information. See U.S. Dept. of State v. Washington, 456 U.S. 595, 599-603 (1982) (citing H.R. Rep.

No. 89-1497, at 11(1966); S. Rep. No. 89-813, at 9 (1965); S. Rep. No. 88-1219, at 14 (1964)). To

determine whether information meets the requirements of Section 552(b)(6), there is a balancing test

between the public’s right to disclosure of the information and the individual’s right to privacy. See

Dept. of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 373 (1976); Fund for Constitutional Govt., 656 F.2d at

862. 

Here, as stated in Wilson’s declaration, IRS employees have a strong right to privacy in order

to fulfill their obligations without fear that taxpayers will attempt to harass or contact employees

directly instead of using the administrative and judicial processes for appeal. Further, Plaintiff

cannot show any meaningful value in uncovering the identities of the individual agents assigned to

his case and there is no showing that disclosure of this information is in the public interest. The

strong privacy rights of the individual IRS agents who handle a particular case outweighs any public

interest and weighs in favor of withholding documents and redacting information. For this

additional reason, the Court finds an exemption to FOIA applies and that the redactions made as to

Case 3:05-cv-00955-MJJ Document 136 Filed 05/14/07 Page 15 of 21
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

16

the identities of the IRS employees were proper. 

e. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C)

Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C), an agency may withhold information compiled for law

enforcement purposes to the extent that its release “could reasonably be expected to constitute an

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C). As noted above, the IRS

engages in law enforcement functions through its civil and criminal enforcement of the IRC. This

exception is also subject to a balancing test, pitting public interest in disclosure against the

individual’s right to privacy. See Dept. Of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press,

489 U.S. 749, 776 (1989); SafeCard Servs., 926 F.2d at 1205; L&C Marine Transport, Ltd. V. U.S.,

740 F.2d 919, 922 (11th Cir. 1984). Specifically, Defendants rely on a Supreme Court ruling that

disclosure of a document under Section 552(b)(7)(C) turns on the nature of the requested document

and its relationship to the goal of the FOIA, which is to open agency action to the light of public

scrutiny. Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 772-773. The statutory purpose of FOIA is not “fostered by

disclosure of information about private citizens that accumulated in various government files but

reveals very little or nothing about an agency’s own conduct.” Id.

Defendants redacted employee identifying information such as names, initials, and employee

identification numbers from three pages of the case history notes. (Wilson Decl. at ¶ 20(d).) The

information consists of personal information regarding individual IRS agents assigned to the case

and does not reveal anything about the agency’s own conduct. Plaintiff does not make a showing

that disclosure of this information is in the public interest. As a result, the balancing test weighs

heavily in favor of protecting an individual’s right to privacy. Accordingly, the Court finds the

redacted information is exempt from disclosure under FOIA. 

4. Internal Correspondence - 5 U.S.C. 552 § 552(b)(5), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A), and

5 U.S.C. §552(b)(7)(C) 

Defendants are also withholding 83 pages in full and 54 pages in part consisting of

correspondence between the revenue office and more senior IRS employees and other IRS divisions,

describing issues that arose during the course of their investigation into George’s financial

resources. (Wilson Decl. at ¶ 21.) Defendants contend that the internal correspondence is exempt

from disclosure under FOIA on four grounds.

Case 3:05-cv-00955-MJJ Document 136 Filed 05/14/07 Page 16 of 21
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

17

a. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5)

As noted above, Section 552(b)(5) exempts from disclosure “inter-agency or intra-agency

memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in

litigation with the agency.” See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). Defendants again assert that this subsection

gives agencies the privileges developed in civil litigation discovery, including the governmental

privilege doctrine. See Weber Aircraft Corp., 465 U.S. at 799. The governmental privilege doctrine

exempts pre-decisional materials that reflect the reflections, opinions, and analysis that constitute the

deliberative process of an agency from disclosure. See Sears Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. at 148-49. 

The internal correspondence withheld here consists, in whole or in part, of information

containing the revenue officer’s development and analysis of the evidence related to Plaintiff and the

opinions and recommendations of various IRS personnel with respect to the direction of the

investigation. (Wilson Decl. at ¶ 21.) Further, the information is pre-decisional given that the

investigation is still ongoing. The documents reflect the IRS’s deliberative process including

reflections, opinions, and analysis. (Id.) Accordingly, the Court finds that the exempted documents

and redacted information are exempt from disclosure under FOIA. 

b. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A)

As noted above, Section 552(b)(7)(A) authorizes the withholding of records or information

compiled for law enforcement purposes to the extent that production of such records or information

could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. Also discussed supra, the

IRS is a law enforcement agency and conducts both civil and criminal enforcement actions.

Defendants adduced that these documents, if released, would allow Plaintiff to craft

explanations or defenses based on the revenue officer’s analysis, rather than upon the facts as known

to him. (Wilson Decl. at ¶ 21(b).) The release may also enable Plaintiff to conceal or disguise

income and would generally interfere with the IRS’s ability to determine Plaintiff’s compliance with

the tax laws during the course of an ongoing investigation. (Id.) The disclosure would interfere

with collection efforts by giving Plaintiff insight into the thought processes and opinions of

individual IRS employees who are involved in the collection process as well as the IRS attorneys

assigned to provide counsel and advice about the ongoing activities. (Id.) Accordingly, for this

Case 3:05-cv-00955-MJJ Document 136 Filed 05/14/07 Page 17 of 21
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

18

additional reason, the Court finds that the withheld internal correspondence is exempt from

disclosure under FOIA.

c. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C)

As noted above, Section 552(b)(7)(C) permits the withholding of information compiled for

law enforcement purposes to the extent that its release “could reasonably be expected to constitute

an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” subject to the balancing test discussed supra. Here,

Defendants redacted information regarding employee identifying names, initials, and employee

identification numbers from documents. (Wilson Decl. at ¶ 21(c).) Plaintiff has not made any

showing in favor of disclosure in the public interest while the individual IRS agents have a strong

interest in keeping this information private. Further, the information does not reveal information

about the agency’s conduct. Accordingly, the Court finds that the redactions of the internal

correspondence was proper and exempt from disclosure under FOIA. 

5. DIF Scores - 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E)

Defendant is also withholding 4 pages, in part, consisting of information related to

discriminant function system (DIF) scores. (Wilson Decl. at ¶ 22.) DIF scores are standards used by

the IRS as the primary method for selecting returns for further examination. (Id. at ¶ 22-23.) DIF

methodology is a mathematical classification technique commonly known in the statistical

community and has been adapted by the IRS to identify tax returns with a high probability of

significant change in reported tax liability if the return is subjected to examination. (Id.) Each

return is assigned a DIF scores, which is the sum of the various values and weights assigned to

different line items on a tax return. (Id.) Tax returns with a higher probability of significant tax

change above higher DIF scores and higher-scored returns tend to be examined first to ensure the

most efficient utilization of limited examination resources and potentially yield greater tax revenue.

(Id.) 

As noted above, Section 552(b)(7)(E) provides:

[R]ecords or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but

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

or information ... would disclose techniques and procedures for law

enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose

guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such

disclosure.

Case 3:05-cv-00955-MJJ Document 136 Filed 05/14/07 Page 18 of 21
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

19

5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). 

Defendants argues that the release of DIF scores would divulge a special investigative

technique or procedure used by the IRS in selecting returns for audit and could reasonably be

expected to enable Plaintiff to circumvent the internal revenue laws. (Wilson Decl. at ¶ 24(a).) 

DIF scores are compiled for the purpose of enforcing internal revenue law and the release of DIF

score system data would compromise the IRS’s enforcement function. Other courts have upheld an

IRS determination to withhold DIF scores under Section 552(b)(7)(E). See Buckner, 25 F.Supp 2d

at 898-99 (upholding IRS’s determination to withhold DIF scores and other investigative techniques

as disclosure “would reveal a vulnerability in IRS procedures that could facilitate circumvention of

payment of required taxes”); Pully, 939 F. Supp. At 438 (upholding IRS determination to withhold

DIF scores); Small, 820 F. Supp. At 166 (upholding IRS determination to withhold DIF scores and

other information concerning IRS tolerances and audit guidelines as disclosure would permit

taxpayers to circumvent the tax laws by enabling them to tailor their returns to lower their DIF

scores or stay within tolerances or guidelines). Accordingly, the Court finds that the DIF scores are

exempt from disclosure under FOIA.

6. Information from Public and Private Sources Regarding Third Parties - 5 U.S.C.

§ 552(b)(7)(C)

The IRS is also withholding 167 pages in full and 95 pages in part consisting of information

obtained from public and private sources regarding individuals other than Plaintiff. (Wilson Decl. at

¶ 25.) Under 5 U.S.C. section 552(b)(7)(C), an agency may withhold information compiled for law

enforcement purposes to the extent that its release “could reasonably be expected to constitute an

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C). As noted above, the IRS

engages in law enforcement functions through its civil and criminal enforcement of the IRC. Again,

the exception is subject to a balancing test, pitting public interest in disclosure against the

individual’s right to privacy. See Dept. Of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press,

489 U.S. 749, 776 (1989); SafeCard Servs., 926 F.2d at 1205; L&C Marine Transport, Ltd. V. U.S.,

740 F.2d 919, 922 (11th Cir. 1984). 

The revenue officer assigned to investigate Plaintiff’s case issued summonses and sent

written requests to state and county officials as well as private organizations to obtain information

Case 3:05-cv-00955-MJJ Document 136 Filed 05/14/07 Page 19 of 21
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

20

regarding individuals who may have a personal or business relationship with Plaintiff. (Wilson

Decl. at ¶ 25.) The documents consist of bank records, property records, and Department of Motor

Vehicles records of third party individuals. (Id.) The documents contain their names, addresses,

social security numbers, account information, and other personal information. (Id.) The revenue

officer also used Choicepoint, an online database of personal and financial information, to obtain

information related to Plaintiff and information on property owned by Plaintiff. (Id.) These records

also included names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, and other personal

information. (Id.) The revenue officer obtained additional records from the California Department

of Motor Vehicles, which yielded information as to individuals with the same or similar names as

that of the Plaintiff. (Id.) This information contains names, addresses, license numbers, and vehicle

identification numbers of third party individuals. (Id.)

The release of this information would constitute the disclosure of personal private data of

third parties. The mere appearance of this information in Plaintiff’s file does not put the information

into the public domain nor has Plaintiff shown any public interest in its disclosure. The information

redacted or exempted consists of personal data such as names, addresses, and social security

numbers collected from public and private sources of third party individuals as part of an ongoing

investigation into Plaintiff. Any disclosure of this third party information would be an unwarranted

invasion into their privacy and the balance weighs in favor of the individuals rights to privacy. As

such, this information is properly exempted from disclosure under FOIA. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:05-cv-00955-MJJ Document 136 Filed 05/14/07 Page 20 of 21
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

21

///

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court FINDS that the IRS fully discharged its obligations

under the FOIA by proving that it reasonably searched for responsive documents and properly

withheld documents or redacted information under a valid exception. As a result, Plaintiff’s

substantive FOIA claim fails and judgment shall be entered for Defendants. For the foregoing

reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May___, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00955-MJJ Document 136 Filed 05/14/07 Page 21 of 21