Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-95-05125/USCOURTS-caDC-95-05125-0/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

Decided March 5, 1996

No. 95-5125

ELAINE MITTLEMAN,

APPELLANT 

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT;

JAMES B. KING, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY

AS DIRECTOR;

RICHARD FERRIS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY

AS ACTING ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR INVESTIGATIONS

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 92cv00158)

-

On Motion for Summary Affirmance

-

Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Attorney, R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant United States Attorney,

Mark E. Nagle, Assistant United States Attorney, and Michael T.Ambrosino, Assistant United States

Attorney, were on the motion for summary affirmance for the appellees.

Elaine Mittleman, pro se.

Before WALD, WILLIAMS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM: Elaine Mittleman appeals a decision by the district court granting summary

judgment to appellees the Office of Personnel Management, James B. King, and Richard Ferris

(collectively "OPM"). We affirm.

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq. (1994),

Mittleman requested all documents collected in a background investigation conducted by OPM

USCA Case #95-5125 Document #185020 Filed: 03/05/1996 Page 1 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

regarding her application for government employment. OPM released the requested documents to

Mittleman after redacting portions of them identifying the sources of certain information pursuant to

FOIA's exemption for law enforcement records set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(D) ("Exemption

7(D)").

After exhausting her administrative appeals, Mittleman filed suit in district court challenging

OPM's determination asto the applicability of Exemption 7(D). The district court granted summary

judgment for OPM. Mittleman v. OPM, No. 92cv00158, Memorandum Order (D.D.C. Jan. 18,

1995) ("Mem. Order").

OPM now moves for summary affirmance of the district court's ruling. We conclude the

district court correctly determined that information obtained during OPM's background investigation

was compiled for law enforcement purposes and that the sources ofsuch information, as well as the

information which would reveal the sources' identities, were properly withheld from disclosure

pursuant to Exemption 7(D).

I. BACKGROUND

In 1983, Mittleman sought employment for a Schedule C position with the Department of

Commerce in the International Trade Administration Section. Pursuant to a request from the

Department of Commerce, OPM conducted a background investigation of Mittleman in connection

with her eligibility for a "critical sensitive" security clearance. Two sources in the investigation

provided information to OPM under an express promise of confidentiality.

In May 1983, Mittleman requested copies of her investigative file from OPM. The file was

disclosed with portions deleted to protect the identities ofthe two confidentialsources. The deletions

were made pursuant to Exemption (k)(5) of the Privacy Act. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(5) (records may

be exempt from disclosure if they consist of "investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose

of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment").

In 1986, Mittleman filed suit in district court against OPM and other agencies and individuals,

seeking review of OPM's partial denial of her request for the investigatory file. The district court

determined that the PrivacyAct claimwas barred by the two-year statute oflimitations and dismissed

USCA Case #95-5125 Document #185020 Filed: 03/05/1996 Page 2 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the FOIA claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Mittleman v. United States Treasury,

773 F. Supp. 442, 448, 451 n.7 (D.D.C. 1991).

In 1990 and 1991, the United States House Subcommittee onCivil and ConstitutionalRights,

chaired by Rep. Don Edwards, and the Subcommittee on the Civil Service, chaired by Rep. Gerry

Sikorski, conducted joint hearings on due process in security clearance determinations. Mittleman

testified before the Subcommittees about her experience with background investigations.

Correspondence between Reps. Edwards and Sikorski and then-Director of OPM Constance

Newman concerning Mittleman ensued.

In October 1991, pursuant to FOIA, Mittleman requested from OPM all correspondence,

memoranda, and documents involving her OPM background investigation. Specifically, Mittleman

sought all documents relating to Newman's March 8, 1990 testimony before the Subcommittees

whichreferred to Mittleman, and alldocuments,memoranda, and files concerning the correspondence

dated March 13, 1990, April 23, 1990, July 27, 1990, September 21, 1990, April 15, 1991, and

August 20, 1991, between Reps. Edwards and Sikorski and Director Newman.

OPM released a number of documentsincluding a "Director's Decision Summary," which had

been used to prepare a letter from Director Newman to Reps. Edwards and Sikorski. OPM also

rereleased copies ofthe redacted pagesfromthe two confidentialsources. OPM relied on Exemption

7(D) for the redactions, asserting that release of the information would jeopardize the identities of

the confidential sources. After completing an administrative appeal, Mittleman filed the instant suit

in district court alleging that the information was improperly withheld under FOIA.

The district court determined that OPM properly withheld the information under Exemption

7(D) because the government had demonstrated: (1) the personnel background investigation was

compiled for law enforcement purposes; (2) the sources provided the information under express

assurances of confidentiality; and (3) the withheld information could reasonably be expected to

disclose the sources' identities. Mem. Order at 2.

II. DISCUSSION

Exemption 7(D) of FOIA exempts from disclosure

USCA Case #95-5125 Document #185020 Filed: 03/05/1996 Page 3 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent

that the production of such law enforcement records or information ... (D) could

reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source ... which

furnished information on a confidential basis.

5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(D). On appeal, Mittleman is only challenging the district court's determination

that the background check was compiled for law enforcement purposes. Mittleman does not dispute

the determinations that the sources were given express assurances of confidentiality or that the

redacted information was limited to protect the sources' identities. In any event, those latter

determinations appear proper. This opinion, therefore, is limited to addressing whether the records

were compiled for law enforcement purposes.

OPM is authorized to perform personnel background investigations. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 1104,

1303-1305, 2301, 3301, 7312, and 7532; 22 U.S.C. §§ 272b and 2585; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1874, 2165,

and 2455; 5 C.F.R. parts 731, 732, and 736. In addition, Executive Order No. 10450 authorizes

background checksto ensure that the "employment or retention in employment in the Federalservice

of the person being investigated is clearly consistent with the interests of the nationalsecurity ... [and

that the employee is] reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and of complete and

unswerving loyalty to the United States." See 18 Fed. Reg. 2489, 2489 (April 29, 1953).

The principal purpose of a background investigation isto ensure that a prospective employee

has not broken the law or engaged in other conduct making her ineligible for the position. See Koch

v. Department of Justice, 376 F. Supp. 313, 315 (D.D.C. 1974). The check also helps "to determine

whether there are any law enforcement or security issues in [her] past that could affect [her] ability

... to carry out" the position. See Doe v. United States Department of Justice, 790 F. Supp. 17, 20

(D.D.C. 1992). We have held that the term "law enforcement purpose" is not limited to criminal

investigations but can also include civil investigations and proceedings in its scope. See Pratt v.

Webster, 673 F.2d 408, 420 n.32 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Thus, " "[e]nforcement' of the law fairly includes

not merely the detection and punishment of violations of law but their prevention." Miller v. United

States, 630 F. Supp. 347, 349 (E.D.N.Y. 1986). It is immaterial to those objectives that OPM did

not discover any information suggesting that Mittleman actually violated the law.

Finally, Mittleman's assertion that the inclusion of excerptsfromher background investigation

USCA Case #95-5125 Document #185020 Filed: 03/05/1996 Page 4 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

file in the "Director's Decision Summary" deprives the information of its Exemption 7(D) protection

is unfounded. It is the nature of the information at issue, not the particular type of file in which it is

found, which determines whether the information is exempt. FBI v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615, 625-27

(1982). Thus, because the background investigation was originally compiled for law enforcement

purposes, the portions of the "Director's Decision Summary" which include information from the

investigation may also be withheld pursuant to Exemption 7(D).

III. CONCLUSION

The district court properly determined that OPM's background investigation information was

compiled for "law enforcement purposes" and, therefore, is exempt from disclosure pursuant to

Exemption 7(D). Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is granted.

So ordered.

USCA Case #95-5125 Document #185020 Filed: 03/05/1996 Page 5 of 5