Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-12-35864/USCOURTS-ca9-12-35864-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Kowack
Appellant
Thomas Tidwell
Appellee
United States Forest Service
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARK KOWACK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE;

THOMAS TIDWELL, Chief of the

United States Forest Service,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-35864

D.C. No.

9:11-cv-00095-

DWM

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

April 10, 2014—Seattle, Washington

Filed September 9, 2014

Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Johnnie B. Rawlinson

and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Chief Judge Kozinski

 Case: 12-35864, 09/09/2014, ID: 9233149, DktEntry: 25-1, Page 1 of 15
2 KOWACK V. USFS

SUMMARY*

Freedom of Information Act

The panel reversed in part the district court’s summary

judgment entered in favor of the United States Forest Service

in an action challenging the Forest Service’s response to a

Freedom of Information Act request.

Mark Kowack, a teacher in the Forest Service’s Job Corps

Program, filed a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”)

request to obtain records pertaining to a misconduct

investigation. The Forest Service responded that it had

located responsive pages, but withheld a number of pages

under certain FOIA Exemptions. After an administrative

appeal, the agency disclosed 188 pages of documents, many

of which were heavily redacted. The district court ordered the

Forest Service to create a Vaughn index describing each

document and explaining why each document was exempt

from disclosure.

Concerning Kowack’s challenge to redactions to twentytwo pages of witness statements made to an investigator by

employees other than himself, the panel held that it did not

have enough information to assess whether the Forest Service

properly redacted the documents pursuant to FOIA

Exemption 6, the personal privacy exemption. Concerning

Kowack’s challenge to redactions made to seventeen pages of

administrative documents and reports created by the agency

investigator and redacted under FOIA Exemption 6 and FOIA

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 12-35864, 09/09/2014, ID: 9233149, DktEntry: 25-1, Page 2 of 15
KOWACK V. USFS 3

Exemption 5 (which protects certain intra-agency records),

the panel held that Exemption 6 did not justify non-disclosure

of the documents and there was insufficient information to

determine whether Exemption 5 applied. Concerning

Kowack’s challenge to the redaction of grievance-related

documents created by the National Federation of Employees

and complaints made by employees other than Kowack, the

panel held that the documents were properly withheld under

FOIA Exemption 6.

The panel remanded to the district court to order the

government to produce a more detailed Vaughn index with

regard to the first two categories of documents, and, if that

was insufficient, to conduct an in camera review. The panel

directed the district court to disclose the documents if the

government failed to meet its burden. The panel held that the

remaining redactions were proper.

COUNSEL

Stacey Weldele-Wade (argued), Antonioli and Wade, P.C.,

Missoula, Montana, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Michael W. Cotter, United States Attorney, George F.

Darragh, Jr. (argued), Assistant United States Attorney, Great

Falls, Montana,KarenCarrington, Office of General Counsel,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Charles Spricknall, Office of

General Counsel, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Appellee.

 Case: 12-35864, 09/09/2014, ID: 9233149, DktEntry: 25-1, Page 3 of 15
4 KOWACK V. USFS

OPINION

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Democracy functions ill in shadow, yet government

bureaucracies are notoriously reluctant to reveal their internal

processes. Recognizing this tension, Congress passed the

Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) in 1966. FOIA fosters

transparency by adopting a baseline presumption that

information in the hands of the government belongs to the

people and must be disclosed on request. But some secrecy

is necessary, so FOIA includes several narrow exemptions. 

We consider how much the government must explain to show

that an exemption blocks the release of requested

information.

I. Background

Mark Kowack teaches disadvantaged youth at the Trapper

Creek Center in Darby, Montana as part of the Forest Service

Job Corps Program. Kowack claims that in 2008 he “began

experiencing threats, aggression, and workplace hostility

from certain of his co-workers.” He says he feared for the

safety of himself and his students.

After Kowack filed a complaint and sought help from one

of his senators, the Director of the Jobs Corps National

Center launched an investigation into “allegations of work

place violence, threatening remarks and a negative work

place culture” at the Trapper Creek Center. The investigator

interviewed and obtained statements from all four employees

in the center’s education department including Kowack, the

center’s director and two other individuals; the investigator

also gathered grievance records, disciplinary letters and

 Case: 12-35864, 09/09/2014, ID: 9233149, DktEntry: 25-1, Page 4 of 15
KOWACK V. USFS 5

informal complaints. These documents were compiled into

a report that was presented to the Forest Service’s

Misconduct Investigations Program Manager and the

National Director of the Jobs Corps Program, among others. 

Ultimately, the Forest Service declined to take any action and

closed the investigation. It notified Kowack of its decision,

but gave him almost no explanation for it.

Dissatisfied, Kowack filed a FOIA request to obtain

copies of the investigative report and “all statements,

interviews, photos, notes and any other documents that

pertain to the ‘misconduct investigation.’” The Forest

Service responded that it had located 173 responsive pages,

80 of which it withheld under the personal privacy

exemption. See 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6).

Kowack filed an administrative appeal, which resulted in

the disclosure of 188 pages of documents, many of which

were heavily redacted. The redacted documents fall into five

categories: (1) statements made to the investigator by

employees other than Kowack; (2) administrative documents

and reports created by the investigator; (3) grievance-related

documents created by the National Federation of Federal

Employees; (4) disciplinary letters issued to employees other

than Kowack; and (5) a complaint made by an employee

other than Kowack to the Trapper Creek Jobs Corps Center

Director.

Kowack sued, challenging the redactions and moved for

in camera inspection of the documents. Instead, the district

court ordered the Forest Service to create a Vaughn index

describing each document and explainingwhyeach document

was exempt from disclosure. As its Vaughn index, the Forest

Service submitted a declaration from Sherry Turner, the

 Case: 12-35864, 09/09/2014, ID: 9233149, DktEntry: 25-1, Page 5 of 15
6 KOWACK V. USFS

Assistant Director of the Forest Service’s FOIA and Privacy

Office. The district court granted the Forest Service’s motion

for summary judgment. Kowack appeals.

II. Discussion

We employ a two-step standard of review when

considering a district court’s grant of summary judgment in

a FOIA case. Yonemoto v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs,

686 F.3d 681, 688 (9th Cir. 2012). First, we review de novo

whether “an adequate factual basis exists to support the

district court’s decisions.” Lane v. Dep’t of Interior,

523 F.3d 1128, 1135 (9th Cir. 2008). In making this

determination, we may rely solely on government affidavits

“so long as the affiants are knowledgeable about the

information sought and the affidavits are detailed enough to

allow the court to make an independent assessment of the

government’s claim.” Lion Raisins, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of

Agriculture, 354 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2004). If the

affidavits are inadequate, we may return the case to the

district court for the production of a more detailed Vaughn

index and, if necessary, a “first-hand determination of

[documents’] exempt status.” Church of Scientology of Calif.

v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 611 F.2d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 1979).

But, if the affidavits are adequate, we review the district

court’s “conclusions of fact . . . for clear error, while legal

rulings, including [the district court’s] decision that a

particular exemption applies, are reviewed de novo.” Lane,

523 F.3d at 1135. The government, of course, has the burden

of proof. U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for

Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 755 (1989).

 Case: 12-35864, 09/09/2014, ID: 9233149, DktEntry: 25-1, Page 6 of 15
KOWACK V. USFS 7

A. Witness Statements

Kowack challenges the redactions to twenty-two pages of

witness statements made to the investigator by employees

other than himself. The government redacted the documents

pursuant to Exemption 6, the personal privacy exemption. 

Exemption 6 protects information about individuals when

contained in “personnel and medical” or other “similar files,”

if disclosure would “constitute a clearlyunwarranted invasion

of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6).

Kowack argues that the government hasn’t proven that the

witness statements are “similar files” because they don’t

contain “information similar to that found in a standard

personnel file.” Church of Scientology, 611 F.2d at 746. But

we’ve defined “similar files” broadly to include “records

containing information that applies to particular individuals.” 

Forest Serv. Emps. for Envtl. Ethics v. U.S. Forest Serv.,

524 F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, files containing

citizenship information on specific individuals; reports of

interviews with Haitian nationals involuntarily returned to

Haiti; and a report analyzing an agency’s response to a

wildfire have all been found to be “similar files.” See

Prudential Locations, LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing &Urban

Devel., 739 F.3d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 2013). Because a

witness’s statement about misconduct he has observed in the

workplace “contain[s] information that applies to particular

individuals,” such statements qualify as “similar files.” See

Forest Serv. Emps., 524 F.3d at 1024.

Nonetheless, the district court erred in finding that the

Turner declaration provides an adequate factual basis for

concluding that disclosure of the witness statements would

“constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal

 Case: 12-35864, 09/09/2014, ID: 9233149, DktEntry: 25-1, Page 7 of 15
8 KOWACK V. USFS

privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). For, even personal

information must be disclosed unless doing so is “clearly

unwarranted,” and this is true only when the individual’s

privacy interest outweighs the public interest. See Yonemoto,

686 F.3d at 694. The only public interest we consider is “the

extent to which disclosure of the information sought would

‘she[d] light on an agency’s performance of its statutory

duties’ or otherwise let citizens know ‘what their government

is up to.’” U.S. Dep’t of Defense v. Fed. Labor Relations

Auth., 510 U.S. 487, 497 (1994) (quoting Reporters Comm.

for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. at 773) (alteration in

original).

Because the district court didn’t conduct an in camera

review, we have only Turner’s description of the withheld

documents, as contained in her Vaughn index declaration, but

this description is too vague to allow us to weigh either the

privacy or the public interests at stake. Turner states that the

witness statements contain “allegations of workplace

violence, threatening remarks, and a negative workplace

culture,” and that the Forest Service redacted “names, job

titles, and other personal identifiers of [the witnesses] and

their detailed accounts and allegations because disclosing

such information would lead to their identification.”

We’ve recognized that a privacy interest exists in

avoiding embarrassment, stigma and harassment, see Forest

Serv. Emps., 524 F.3d at 1026, and the knowledge that a

specific employee was associated with the investigation could

implicate the employee’s privacy interest. But that doesn’t

help the government in this case because we already know the

identities of most of the people interviewed—all employees

of the Education Department, the center director and two

other individuals. At least the department employees and the

 Case: 12-35864, 09/09/2014, ID: 9233149, DktEntry: 25-1, Page 8 of 15
KOWACK V. USFS 9

center director, then, have no privacy interests in preventing

the public from knowing about their involvement with the

investigation.

The witnesses may have a privacy interest in ensuring that

their names aren’t associated with specific incidents reported

to the investigator. But the government hasn’t provided

enough information for us to make an independent

determination whether it’s necessary to withhold all details

about the events the witnesses described in order to protect

that interest. See Yonemoto, 686 F.3d at 694. The

government justifies its redactions only by noting that the

center is located in a small community and has a small staff: 

Because of the limited universe of possible suspects, the

government argues, the public could easily identify who

made which allegation, and which employee is being

complained about. That’s fine in theory, but the government

hasn’t told us anything about the type of incidents reported.

It’s entirely possible that the substance of the witness

statements could be disclosed without revealing who made

them. The government asks us to take its word for it. FOIA

requires more.

Nor do we have enough information to assess the public

interest. The district court found that any public interest in

the witness statements is “marginal” because they “shed light

only on interpersonal and interoffice conflict.” But the

Turner declaration discloses that the misconduct investigation

“focused on allegations of workplace violence, threatening

remarks, and negative workplace culture.” For all we know,

the witness statements reveal that the Trapper Creek Center

is run by dangerous bullies who shouldn’t be allowed

anywhere near disadvantaged youth. That kind of

information would certainly “let citizens know ‘what their

 Case: 12-35864, 09/09/2014, ID: 9233149, DktEntry: 25-1, Page 9 of 15
10 KOWACK V. USFS

government is up to.’” Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 510 U.S.

at 497 (quoting Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press,

489 U.S. at 773). Without a more detailed description from

the government, the only way we can determine the public

interest is by looking at the documents ourselves.

B. Administrative Documents and Reports Created

by the Investigator

Kowack also challenges the redactions made to seventeen

pages of administrative documents and reports created by the

investigator. These redactions were made pursuant to

Exemption 5, which protects “intra-agencymemorandums or

letters which would not be available by law to a party other

than an agency in litigation with the agency,” 5 U.S.C.

§ 552(b)(5), and Exemption 6, the personal privacy

exemption. According to the Turner declaration, the

documents “were created by the HRM Investigator and

included the identity of all employees interviewed, case

background, a list of issues/allegations, an index of

documents contained in the investigative file, transmittal

documents, and investigative summaries, findings and

recommendations.” The government redacted, among other

information, “names, identifiable portions of individual

statements, cellular telephone numbers, and any references to

disciplinary letters issued to employees other than Kowack.” 

Kowack doesn’t argue that the redaction of the telephone

number and names was improper, but he does challenge the

withholding of the other information.

1. Personal Privacy Exemption

The government justifies its invocation of the personal

privacy exemption only by stating that “[t]he Forest Service

 Case: 12-35864, 09/09/2014, ID: 9233149, DktEntry: 25-1, Page 10 of 15
KOWACK V. USFS 11

applied the same balancing test as described above [with

regard to the witness statements].” There isn’t a sufficient

factual basis supporting the application of the personal

privacy exemption to the documents created by the

Investigator for the same reasons that there isn’t a sufficient

factual basis supporting the application of the exemption to

the witness statements. See pp. 7–10 supra. Therefore, the

personal privacyexemption doesn’t justifythe non-disclosure

of these documents.

2. Intra-Agency Communication Exemption

Nor is the Turner declaration sufficient for us to conclude

that Exemption 5, the intra-agency communication

exemption, applies. Exemption 5 allows the government to

withhold documents that fall within a recognized litigation

privilege. Dep’t of Interior v. Klamath Water Users

Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 8 (2001). The Forest Service

invokes the deliberative process privilege, which covers

“documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations

and deliberations comprising part of a process by which

governmental decisions and policies are formulated.” Carter

v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 307 F.3d 1084, 1089 (9th Cir.

2002) (quoting Klamath, 532 U.S. at 8). That privilege

shields from disclosure documents that are both

“predecisional” and part of the agency’s “deliberative

process,” and applies only if “disclosure of [the] materials

would expose an agency’s decisionmaking process in such a

way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and

thereby undermine the agency’s ability to perform its

functions.” Maricopa Audubon Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv.,

108 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Assembly of the

State of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 968 F.2d 916, 920

(9th Cir. 1992)).

 Case: 12-35864, 09/09/2014, ID: 9233149, DktEntry: 25-1, Page 11 of 15
12 KOWACK V. USFS

Turner states that the documents are predecisional

because the “assessments were developed by a subordinate

employee to inform and assist the decision-maker” and “the

Forest Service had made no final decision with respect to any

of the allegations at issue.” Because the documents were

“prepared in order to assist an agency decisionmaker in

arriving at his decision,” the Turner declaration adequately

shows that the documents are predecisional. Id. (internal

citation omitted).

But the Turner declaration doesn’t adequately show how

the disclosure of any portion of the redacted documents

would “expose ‘the [agency’s] decision-making process

itself’ to public scrutiny.” Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Forest

Serv., 861 F.2d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Montrose

Chemical Corp. of Calif. v. Train, 491 F.2d 63, 68 (D.C. Cir.

1974)). Turner makes clear that at least some of the redacted

information includes “the factual reasons whythe investigator

concluded that the allegations of workplace violence and

employees making threatening remarks to one another were

unsubstantiated.” While facts aren’t automatically subject to

disclosure, “factual material that does not reveal the

deliberative process is not protected.” Id. at 1117 (internal

quotations and alterations omitted) (quoting Paisley v. CIA,

712 F.2d 686, 698 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). Turner doesn’t even say

whether the government tried to segregate the factual

information, let alone provide enough detail for us to

conclude that the factual portions of the documents are “so

interwoven with the deliberative material that [they are] not

[segregable].” United States v. Fernandez, 231 F.3d 1240,

1247 (9th Cir. 2000). A stand-alone fact section, for

example, could likely be disclosed without revealing the

agency’s deliberative process, while isolated facts embedded

within a subordinate’s explanation of why the allegations

 Case: 12-35864, 09/09/2014, ID: 9233149, DktEntry: 25-1, Page 12 of 15
KOWACK V. USFS 13

were meritless may not be. Without more information, we

can’t make the “independent assessment” that FOIA

demands. Lion Raisins, Inc., 354 F.3d at 1079.

C. Other Categories of Documents

Kowack also challenges the redaction of grievance-related

documents created by the National Federation of Employees

and complaints made by employees other than Kowack to the

center director pursuant to the personal privacy exemption.1

The grievance documents were redacted to withhold “[a]ny

information that would identify individual employees other

than KOWACK including names, and dates and details of

specific incidents.” The informal complaint was redacted to

“remove the name and other identifying information of the

complainant and the content of the complaint and response.”

Because the public interest in disclosure of these

documents is minimal, the documents were properly

withheld. Courts have recognized that, where there is no

public interest, “we need not linger over the balance” between

the public and private interests implicated by a particular

document because “something, even a modest privacy

interest, outweighs nothing every time.” Nat’l Ass’n of

Retired Fed. Emps. v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873, 879 (D.C. Cir.

1989). The Turner declaration sufficiently demonstrates that

there is likely no public interest in these documents.

1 Although the government also redacted a fifth category of

documents—disciplinary letters issued to employees other than

Kowack—Kowack’s opening brief doesn’t contain any specific argument

about these documents. Any challenge to the redaction of those

documents is therefore waived. See Retlaw Broad. Co. v. NLRB, 53 F.3d

1002, 1005 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995).

 Case: 12-35864, 09/09/2014, ID: 9233149, DktEntry: 25-1, Page 13 of 15
14 KOWACK V. USFS

The grievance-related documents, which include “a notice

of intent to file an unfair labor practice charge on behalf of an

individual employee other than KOWACK and a pregrievance settlement agreement,” concern “the denial of

Weingarten rights to an individual employee other than

Kowack.” Weingarten guarantees the right of employees to

have union representation at investigatory interviews. 

NLRB v. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251, 253 (1975). While

documents that would demonstrate a pattern of the denial of

Weingarten rights could “she[d] light on [the Forest

Service’s] performance of its statutory duties,” U.S. Dep’t of

Defense, 510 U.S. at 497, at most, the documents that

Kowack has requested would shed light on one employee’s

complaint, greatly limiting its ability to reveal anything

significant about the way the Forest Service generally

operates. See Hunt v. Federal Bureau of Investigation,

972 F.2d 286, 288–89 (9th Cir. 1992) (contrasting the public

interest in a request for a single disciplinary file with that in

a request for multiple files). The public interest in the

documents therefore could not possibly outweigh the

employee’s privacy interest, even if that interest is minimal.

The Turner declaration similarly demonstrates the lack of

public interest in the informal complaint to the center director

and the director’s response. Those documents “concern

unsubstantiated allegations and complaints made by one

employee and the response to the employee by the Center

Director.” Like the grievance documents, this category of

documents concerns only one complaint, and an

unsubstantiated one at that. The privacy interest in these

documents may be small—Turner doesn’t provide enough

detail for us to determine whether disclosure of any of the

information would allow for the identification of the

employee involved. But there is undoubtedly some privacy

 Case: 12-35864, 09/09/2014, ID: 9233149, DktEntry: 25-1, Page 14 of 15
KOWACK V. USFS 15

interest in the submission of non-formal complaints. See

Forest Serv. Emps., 524 F.3d at 1026. And even that limited

privacy interest is enough to outweigh whatever marginal

public interest may exist in disclosure.2 See id.

* * *

We therefore remand for the district court to order the

government to produce a more detailed Vaughn index with

regard to the first two categories of documents, and, if that’s

not sufficient, to conduct an in camera review. If the

government can’t meet its burden, the district court must

order the documents disclosed.

The remaining redactions were proper.

REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. COSTS

TO APPELLANT.

2 For the first time on appeal, Kowack argues that the Forest Service’s

search for documents was inadequate. Because the argument is waived,

we decline to address it. See Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th

Cir. 2006).

 Case: 12-35864, 09/09/2014, ID: 9233149, DktEntry: 25-1, Page 15 of 15