Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06193/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06193-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
KTVY-TV
Appellant
United States Postal Service
Appellee
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

KTVY-TV, a division of Knight-Ridder 

Broadcasting, Inc., an Oklahoma 

corporation, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FI LED 

United States Coul!t of Appeal$ 

·renth Circuit 

NOV 2 7 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-6193 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED 

STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. CIV-87-1432-T) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Clyde A. Muchmore, Richard C. Ford, Wesley C. Fredenburg of Crowe 

& Dunlevy, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellant. 

Stuart E. Schiffer, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Washington, 

D.C., Williams. Price, United States Attorney, Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma, Leonard Schaitman and Robert M. Loeb, Attorneys, 

Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, 

Washington, D.C., for Defendants-Appellees. · 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Appellate Case: 89-6193 Document: 01019956415 Date Filed: 11/27/1990 Page: 1 
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district court 

granting defendants' motion for summary judgment after concluding 

the documents that plaintiff requested under the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA), 5 u.s.c. § 552, are exempt from 

disclosure, see 5 u.s.c. § 552(b)(7)(C), (D). We affirm. 

On August 20, 1986, Patrick H. Sherrill, a United States 

Postal Service employee, entered the post office in Edmond, 

Oklahoma, armed with firearms. He shot and killed fourteen postal 

workers and wounded six others. Sherrill then killed himself. 

Thereafter, the United States Postal Service investigated the 

incident, compiling an approximately 4,700 page record. The 

record consisted of interview transcripts and memoranda, 

handwritten notes taken during interviews, the presentation letter 

of the United States Attorney, and various exhibits. Plaintiff 

requested that the documents from the completed investigation be 

disclosed. The Postal Service disclosed 2,145 pages of the 

documents, with some deletions. Defendants refused to release the 

remaining parts of the investigation file, specifically the 

identities of interviewees and their statements and information 

regarding an interview of 

before the shootings, on 

disclosure. 

Sherrill by his supervisor the day 

the ground that they were exempt from 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6193 Document: 01019956415 Date Filed: 11/27/1990 Page: 2 
After exhausting administrative remedies, plaintiff filed an 

action in district court seeking disclosure of the undisclosed 

portions of the investigation file. Plaintiff maintained the 

public had a right to know the facts about the crime and 

defendants' possible failure to prevent the crime. In granting 

summary judgment, the district court agreed with defendants' 

refusal to turn over the undisclosed information. It held that 

the documents were exempt from disclosure, because disclosure 

could result in an invasion of privacy and any persons who spoke 

with the Postal Inspector did so with either an express or implied 

assurance of confidentiality. See 5 u.s.c. § 552(b)(7)(C), (D). 

On appeal, plaintiff argues the district court erred in 

granting summary judgment after overbroadly construing Exemptions 

7(C) and (D). We review the granting of summary judgment de novo, 

applying the same legal standard used by the district court. 

Barnson v. United States, 816 F.2d 549, 552 (10th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 484 U.S. 896 (1987). Summary judgment is appropriate when I 

there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

In applying this standard, we review the factual record and 

reasonable inferences in the record in the light most favorable to 

the party opposing summary judgment. Gray v. Phillips Petroleum 

Co., 858 F.2d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 1988). 

The FOIA generally favors disclosure to permit "public access 

to information unnecessarily shielded from public view." Johnson 

v. United States Dep't of Justice, 739 F.2d 1514, 1516 (10th Cir. 

1984). Information must be made available on demand by any member 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6193 Document: 01019956415 Date Filed: 11/27/1990 Page: 3 
of the public, unless the material is specifically exempted by a 

statutory provision to protect confidentiality or privacy 

interests. Alirez v. NLRB, 676 F.2d 423, 425 (10th Cir. 1982). 

Statutory exemptions are narrowly construed. Id. 

A district court must make a de novo review of an 

administrative claim of exemption, with the agency 

bearing the burden of justifying the decision to 

withhold. 5 u.s.c. § 552(a)(4)(B). To satisfy its 

initial burden under [FOIA], the agency must provide a 

"detailed analysis" of the requested documents and the 

reasons for invoking·a particular exemption. 

Johnson, 739 F.2d at 1516. 

The exemption provisions relied on by defendants in their 

motion and by the district court in granting summary judgment 

provide for nondisclosure of 

records or information compiled for law enforcement 

purposes, but only to the extent that the production of 

such law enforcement records or information ... (C) 

could reasonably be expected to constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could 

reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a 

confidential source ... and, in the case of a record 

or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement 

authority in the course of a criminal investigation 

• • . information furnished by a confidential 

source . . . . 

5 u.s.c. § 552(b)(7). 

Investigatory Information 

The threshold question in determining whether either of the 

exemptions applies is whether the materials in question are 

investigatory records or information compiled for law enforcement 

purposes. See Hopkinson v. Shillinger, 866 F.2d 1185, 1222 (10th· 

Cir. 1989); Republic of New Afrika v. FBI, 656 F. Supp. 7, 10 

(D.D.C. 1985), aff'd, 821 F.2d 821 (D.C. Cir. 1987)(table). The 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-6193 Document: 01019956415 Date Filed: 11/27/1990 Page: 4 
( 

government has the burden of proving a compilation for these 

purposes. John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 110 s. Ct. 471, 475 

(1989). 

The parties agree that the transcripts and notes of 

interviews are 

They disagree 

interview of 

materials compiled for law enforcement purposes. 

as to whether the information regarding the 

Sherrill conducted by his supervisor the day before 

the shootings is a record compiled for law enforcement purposes. 

Plaintiff argues that this is not such a record, because it took 

place before the investigation commenced and therefore was not 

gathered as part of an investigation. 

The FOIA does not require that records must have been 

originally compiled for a . law enforcement investigation; the 

records merely must have been so compiled when the government 

invokes an exemption to the FOIA request. Id. at 476-77. Thus, 

the phrase "compiled for law enforcement purposes" covers 

"documents already collected by the Government originally for nonlaw-enforcement purposes." Id. at 4 76. Informat·ion originally 

not compiled for law enforcement purposes may become exempt under 

Exemption 7 when it is recompiled for law enforcement purposes. 

See id. at 478. Accordingly, the interview information qualifies 

as "information compiled for law enforcement purposes." 

Because all of the information at issue was compiled for law 

enforcement purposes, the next consideration is whether the 

requested information is exempt from disclosure under Exemptions 

7 ( C ) and ( D ) . 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-6193 Document: 01019956415 Date Filed: 11/27/1990 Page: 5 
Exemption 7(C) 

Plaintiff argues that the district court inappropriately 

applied Exemption 7(C), because disclosure could not reasonably be 

expected to result in "an unwarranted invasion of personal 

privacy." Plaintiff challenges as overbroad the district court's 

refusal to disclose the names of interviewees and persons 

identified in their statements on the grounds that any further 

questioning of them could be harassing, embarrassing, and, 

consequently, an invasion of privacy. Instead, plaintiff 

maintains any possibility of harassment is not existent since 

Sherrill is dead and the shooting was an isolated incident. 

To determine whether Exemption 7(C) is applicable, courts 

must balance the individual's privacy interest against the 

public's interest in the release of information. United States 

Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 

U.S. 749, 109 s. Ct. 1468, 1476.(1989); Johnson, 739 F.2d at 1518. 

The preliminary question is whether the interest in nondisclosure 

is the type of privacy1 interest Exemption 7(C) is intended to 

protect. Reporters Committee, 109 S. Ct. at 1476. 

The record establishes that the interviewees and persons 

mentioned by the interviewees in their interviews have a 

legitimate privacy interest in nondisclosure of their identities. 

See Halloran v. Veterans Admin., 874 F.2d 315, 321 (5th Cir. 

1989)(persons have a privacy interest in not having their names 

1 Private information is "'intended for or restricted to the 

use of a particular person or group or class of persons: not 

freely available to the public.'" Reporters Comm., 109 s. Ct. at 

1476 and n.16 (quoting Webster's Third New International 

Dictionary 1804 (1976)). 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-6193 Document: 01019956415 Date Filed: 11/27/1990 Page: 6 
disclosed). Also, the record fully supports the district court's 

determination that withholding their names and anything 

identifying them was necessary to avoid harassment and 

embarrassment. 

Although plaintiff argues the interviewees need not worry 

about Sherrill harassing or embarrassing them, the analysis does 

not end with Sherrill's death. These persons still have a 

legitimate privacy interest in not being harassed or embarrassed 

by other persons. See Reporters Comm., 109 S. Ct. at 1480 

(recognizing privacy interest in keeping personal facts from 

public eye) . 

Because these persons have a legitimate privacy interest, 

this privacy interest must be balanced against the public's 

interest in disclosure. Johnson, 739 F.2d at 1519. "[R]elevant 

factors are whether a substantial public interest will be advanced 

by the disclosure, and whether the likely public impact from 

disclosure will be significant." Id. The identity of the 

requesting party has no bearing on the assessment of the public 

interest served by disclosure. Reporters Comm., 109 s. Ct. at 

1480. The public has an interest in being informed about what the 

government is doing. Id. at 1481. 

Plaintiff argues the public interest at stake is the right of 

the public to know how the shootings occurred and whether they 

could have been avoided. As defendants argue, the identities of 

witnesses and third parties do not provide information about the 

conduct of the government. Id. at 1482 (the FOIA's purpose is not 

to permit disclosure of information about private citizens that is 

7 

Appellate Case: 89-6193 Document: 01019956415 Date Filed: 11/27/1990 Page: 7 
kept by the government, rather it is to ensure government 

activities are subject to public scrutiny). There is no proof 

disclosure of any of the interview information would establish 

that defendants could have prevented the incident. At most, 

plaintiff makes a broad, unsupported statement of possible neglect 

by defendants. Cf. Miller v. Bell, 661 F.2d 623, 630 (7th Cir. 

1981)(plaintiff's broad, unsupported hints of government cover-up 

or undercover surveillance are contrary to substance of disclosed 

documents revealing case as one of consequence to one person), 

cert. denied, 456 U.S. 960 (1982). Furthermore, any slight 

interest the public may have in knowing the background and details 

of the shooting is outweighed by the reasonable likelihood of· 

harassment and embarrassment of the witnesses and other persons. 

Because the disclosure of the information could reasonably be 

expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, the 

district court appropriately granted summary judgment for 

defendants on the Exemption 7(C) issue. 

Exemption 7(D) 

Plaintiff argues the district court erred in withholding the 

identities and statements of interviewees as confidential. 

Because the investigation has ended and this type of incident is 

not likely to occur again, plaintiff contends there is no need for 

confidentiality and these people will not again be sources of 

information for defendants. 

Exemption 7(D) focuses on whether confidential information is 

furnished by a confidential source. Johnson, 739 F.2d at 1517. 

8 

Appellate Case: 89-6193 Document: 01019956415 Date Filed: 11/27/1990 Page: 8 
Exemption 7(0) does not depend on the content of the requested 

documents, it depends instead on whether the information was 

provided to the government by a confidential source and was part 

of the record compiled as part of a criminal investigation. Brant 

Constr. Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 778 

F.2d 1258, 1262 (7th Cir. 1985). If the sources gave information 

in confidence, their names and other identifying information are 

exempt. L & C Marine Transport, Ltd. v. United States, 740 F.2d 

919, 924-25 (11th Cir. 1984). 

The government has the burden to prove that sources of 

information are confidential, Hopkinson, 866 F.2d at 1222, and 

that the information was acquired under an express assurance of 

confidentiality or that the circumstances were such that an 

assurance of confidentiality could be inferred. Brant Constr. 

Co., 778 F.2d at 1263; see Johnson, 739 F.2d at 1517-18. Unless 

the evidence in the record is to the contrary, there is implied 

confidentiality in interviews conducted as part of a criminal 

investigation. Johnson, 739 F.2d at 1517-18. 

Sever~l interviewees received an express assurance of 

confidentiality. Nothing in the record suggests that any 

interviewee, who was not given an express assurance, was not given 

implied confidentiality or that defendants' actions were 

inconsistent with an implied assurance of confidentiality. The 

indications of fears of harassment and embarrassment support an 

·implied request for confidentiality for those not expressly 

assured of confidentiality. See Birch v. United States Postal 

Serv., 803 F.2d 1206, 1212· (D.C. Cir. 1986); Brant Constr. Co., 

9 

Appellate Case: 89-6193 Document: 01019956415 Date Filed: 11/27/1990 Page: 9 
( 

778 F.2d at 1264. Even though the investigation may have 

concluded, exemption from disclosure is not extinguished because 

the statutory requirements of Exemption 7(0) are me.t. See Brant 

.Constr. Co., 778 F.2d at 1265 n.8. Thus, the district court did 

not err in refusing to compel disclosure and appropriately granted 

summary judgment on the Exemption 7(0) issue. 

We conclude that the district court correctly determined that 

all of the undisclosed information in this case is exempt under 

Exemptions 7(C) or (D). Accordingly, the judgment of the United 

States District Court for the Western District of. Oklahoma is 

AFFIRMED. 

10 . 

Appellate Case: 89-6193 Document: 01019956415 Date Filed: 11/27/1990 Page: 10