# Unite d States Court of Appe als

F O R T H E D I S T R

I C T O F C O L U M B I A

C I R C U I T

Arg ued January

14, 2015 Dec ided J une 5, 2015

No. 13-5269

P R I S O N L E G

A L N E W S , A P P E L L A N T

v.

C H A R L E S E. S A M

U E L S , J R ., D I R

E C TO R , F E D E R

A L B U R E A U O F P R I S O N S , A P P E L L E E

Appea l from the United States District Court for the D istrict of Columbia (No. 1:05-c v-01812)

Ronald G. London arg ued the cause for appellant. Wit h him on the brief

s were Lisa B. Z

yche rman and Lance W

eber

.

Bruce D. Brown
, Gregg P. Leslie
, Bruce W

. Sandford
, Laurie A. Babinski
, Peter Schee r and Charles D. Tobin wer e on the brief for amici curiae The Reporter s Commi ttee for Fr eedom of the Press, e t al. in support of appe llant.

W ynev a Johnson
, Assistant U.S. Attorney
, arg ued the cause for appellee

. Wit h her on the brief wer e Ronald C. Mache n Jr.
, U. S. Attorney
, and R. Craig Lawrence and Alan Bur ch
, Assistant U.S. Attorney s.2

Be fore : H E

N D E R S O N , Circuit Judge
, and W I L L I A M S and R A N D O L P H , Senior Circuit Judges

. Opinion for the Co u rt fi led by Senior Circuit Judge R A N D O L P H

.

R A N D O L P H , Senior Circuit Judge : The eff orts of Prison L eg al News (“PL

N”) t o obtain documents from the Fe dera l Bur eau of Prisons are chronic led in the four district court opinio n s p re ceding this appea l. See Prison Legal News v. Samuels
, 954 F. Supp. 2d 21 (D.D.C. 2013); Prison Legal News

v. Lappi n , 780 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C. 2011); Prison Legal News v. L a

p p i n , 603 F. Supp. 2d 124 (D.D.C. 2009); Prison Legal News v. Lappin
, 436 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D.D.C. 2006). PL N publishes a leg al journal devote d to news and litigation

co ncer ning detention fac iliti es. I n 2003, PL N filed a Fr ee d o m of I nformation Act (“F OI A”) reque st with the Fe dera l Bur eau of Prisons seeking all documents showing money the Bur eau paid in connec tion wi th lawsuits and claims broug ht ag ainst it b et we en J anuar

y 1, 1996, and J uly 31, 2003. PL N also sough t a waiver of any fee s associate d with the request. Priso n L egal News v. Samuels
, 954 F. Supp. 2d at 24; Prison L eg a l N ew s v. Lappin , 436 F. Supp. 2d at 18-19.

The Bur eau produce d no rec ords and denied the fee waiver

. Af t er PL N broug ht suit in 2005, the Bur eau produce d
appr o x imately 11,000 pag es of documents, of which 2,993 contained reda ctions. Prison Legal News v. Samuels
, 954 F. Supp. 2d at 24-25. The Bur eau provided aff idavits, decla

rations, and Vaughn indices i n support of the redac tions. Id

. at 24-25. 1

A Vaug hn index des cr ibes the doc um ents w it hheld o r re dac te d 1 and the FOI A exe m

ptio ns inv ok ed, and expla ins w hy ea ch exe m ptio n appli es

. See Vaug hn v. Rose n , 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir

. 1973 ); Key s v. U.S. Dep’t of

Jus ti ce , 830 F.2d 337 , 349 (D.C. Cir . 198 7).3

PL N challeng ed the basis for the reda ctions and the adequa cy of the Bur eau’ s sear ch for responsive documents. The district
court ruled that the Bur eau had cond u ct ed an adequate sear ch, but that the Bur eau had not justified the reda ctions. See Prison Legal News v. Lappin , 780 F. Supp. 2d at 41-45.

Aft e r multipl e cross-motions for summary judgme nt, 102 or

so documents rema ined at issue. Prison Legal News v. Samuels
, 954 F. Supp. 2d at 25 & n.5. The Bur eau provided an updated 2 Vaughn index (the Stroble Vaughn index), and the parties crossfiled for summary judgme nt once ag ain. The updated Vau ghn index indicated tha t the Bur eau a pplied both F OI A exemptions 6 and 7(C) to support the rema ining r edac tions. 3 4

The district court g rante d the Bur eau’ s cross-motion for

sum mary judgme nt, holding that the Stroble Vaughn index

The par ti es st at e that 102 doc um ents ar e st il l in dispute , but the 2 dist ri ct co urt s ugg es te d that

the num ber is lo w er

. Pri

son Legal Ne ws

v. Samuels
, 954 F. Supp

. 2d at 25 n.5. I n the par ti es ’ Joint Appendix,

so m e of the “reda ct ed doc um ents in dispute ” do not co ntai n any

re dac ti ons

. See

, e. g

. , E xhibits 93 & 94 (Do cs

. 110-97 & 110-98), Joint Appendix 12 09- 36.

Exem ptio n 6 per

m it s the go ve rnm ent to w it hhold “p er son n el 3 and m edic al fi le s and si m il ar fi le s the disclosu re of w hich w oul d

co nsti tute a cl ea

rl y unwa rr ante d inv as io n of per so nal priv ac y .” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)( 6); se e Tax Analys ts v. IRS
, 117 F.3d 607, 620 (D.C. Cir . 199 7).

Exem ptio n 7(C) per

m it s the go ve rnm ent to withhold “rec or ds 4

or info rm at io n co m

pile d fo r la

w enf or ce m ent purpos es , but onl y to the
exte nt that the pro ducti on of suc h la w enf or ce m ent re co rds or info rm at io n

. . . co uld re as ona bly be expec te d to const it ute an

unwa rr ante d i nva si on of per so nal priv ac y .” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)( 7)(C) ;

se e Me er opol v. Mee

se , 790 F.2d 942 , 958 (D.C. Cir . 198 6).4
supported application of FOI A exe m p t i o n 6. I n rea ching that conclusion, the court first noted that the reque sted docume n t s inclu d e n ames and persona l information and so “ea sily fall under t h e purview of an individual’s ‘intere st in avoiding disclosure of persona l matters.’ ” Id. at 29 (quoting Judicial W atch, Inc . v. De

p’t of Justice , 365 F.3d 1108, 1125 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). The court proce eded to balanc e this interest ag ainst the public int er es t in disclosure, finding that the Bur eau’ s cate g orica l explanation for the reda ctions supported application of exemption 6. Id. at 29-31; see also Horowitz v. Peac e Corps
, 4 28 F.3d 271, 278 (D.C. Cir. 2005); W ash. Post Co. v. U. S

. Dep’ t of He alth & Human Servs.
, 690 F.2d 252, 260 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Be cause it deter

mined that ex emption 6 supported the reda ctions, the court did not addre ss the applicabilit y of exemption 7(C).

On appea l, PL

N arg ues t h at neither exemption 6 nor exemption 7(C) applies. The arg ument is tha

t the Bur eau’ s use of a ca teg orica l explanation for the reda ctions was improper beca use of the varie d nature of the documents an d of the individuals shielded from disclosure. PL N cla ims that the district court did not adequa tely balanc e the pr ivacy

and public interests at stak e. Be cause we ag ree that more was require d, both of the Bur eau and of the district co u rt, we reve rse the district court’s g rant of summary judgme nt and rema nd for further proce eding s in acc ordanc e with this opinion.

I.

FOI A require s the go vernme nt to disclose, upon reque st, broad clas s es of documents identified in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)

. I t exempts from disclosure nine cate g or ie s of documents descr ibed in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). The g overnme nt is entitled to s u m m ary judgme nt if no materia l fac ts are in dispute and i f i t demonstrates that withheld or reda cted documents are not5
required to be disclosed under § 552(a) or are exempt from disclosure under § 552(b). Bill i n g t o n v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justice
, 233 F.3d 581, 583-84 (D.C. Cir. 2000); see also Cause of Action

v. Nat’l A r ch i ves & Rec ords Admin.
, 753 F.3d 210, 212 (D.C. Cir. 2014); K

a t z v. Nat’l Archive

s & Rec ords Admin.
, 68 F.3d 1438, 14 4 0 (D.C. Cir. 1995). We revie w the district court’s g rant of summary

judgme nt de novo

. See Nat’l Sec . Archive v. CIA , 752 F.3d 460, 462 ( D.C. Cir. 2014).

A.

The Bur eau reda cted documents on the basis of exemption 6, which shields from disclosure “per sonnel and medical files and simil ar files the disclo s u re o f which would constitute a clea rly unwar rante d inv asion of persona l privac y .” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)( 6). “Similar files” in cl u d e “deta iled Gover nment 5

rec ords on an individual which can be identified as a pply ing to that ind i v idual.” Judicial W atch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justice
, 365 F.3d at 1124 (quoting U.S. Dep’ t of State v. W ash. Post Co.
, 456 U.S. 595, 602 (1982))

. Ex emption 6 cover s “not just files, but also bits of persona l information, such as nam es and addre sses, the rele ase of which would ‘cr eate [] a palpable threa t to privac y .’” Judicial W

atch, Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin.
, 449

As w e hav e w ri tt en, the Vaug hn index indic at es that the Bure au 5 appli ed not onl y exe m

ptio n 6, but al so exe m

ptio n 7(C), an exe m

ptio n that pro te ct s info rm at io n that w as co llecte d fo r la w enf or ce m ent purpos es an d “co uld re as ona bly be expec te d to co nsti tute an

unwa rr ante d inv as io n of per so nal priv ac y ,” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)( C),
to suppor t the re dac ti ons

. “‘ Exem ptio n 7(C) is m or e pro te ct iv e of priv ac y than Exem

ption 6 ’ and thus es ta

blis hes a lo w er bar fo r

w it hholdi ng m at er ia l.” ACLU v. U.S

. Dep’ t o f Justi ce , 655 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir

. 2011 ) (quot ing U.S. Dep’ t of Def ens e v. FLRA
, 510 U

. S. 487, 496 n.6 (1994)). Bec aus e the dist ri ct co urt addre ss ed onl y
exe m ptio n 6
, our ana ly si s is li m it ed to that exe m ptio n. On re m and, the di st ri ct co urt m ay

exa m ine t

he a pplic abil it

y of both e xem

ptio ns.6
F.3d 141, 152 ( D.C. Cir. 2006) (alter ation in orig inal) (quoting Carter v. U.S. Dep’ t of Commerce
, 830 F.2d 388, 391 (D.C. Cir. 1987)).

The primary p u rpose of this exemption is “‘to protec t individuals fro m t he injury and embar rassment that can result fr om the unnece ssary disclosure of persona l information.’” Ju d i ci a l W

atch, Inc. v. Dep’ t of Justice
, 365 F.3d at 1124 (quoting U.S. Dep’ t of State v. W ash. Post Co.
, 456 U.S. at 599). Ex emption 6 “does not cate g o rica lly exempt individuals’ identities.” Judicial W

atch, Inc. v. Fo o d & Drug Admin.
, 449 F.3d a t 153. “The scope of a privac y interest under

Ex emption 6 will alway s be dependent on the c ontext in which it has been

asser ted.” Armstrong v. Exe c. Office of the President
, 97 F.3d 575, 581 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

To apply exemption 6, a court must fi rst “dete rmine whether ‘disclosure would compromise a s u b s ta n ti a l, as opposed
to a de minimis , privac y interest.’” Consumers’ Check book Ctr. for the Study of Servs. v. U.S. Dep’ t of Health & Human Servs.
, 554 F.3d 1046, 1050 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Nat’l A ss’n of Retired Fed. Emps. v. Homer
, 879 F.2d 873, 874 (D.C. Cir. 1989)). I f a substantial privac y interest is at stake, then the court must “bala

nce” the individual’s rig ht o f p ri vacy ag ainst the public interest in disclosure. Horowitz
, 428 F.3d a t 278 (citing Dep’ t of the Air Force v. R ose , 425 U.S. 352, 372-73 (1976))

.

“The focus of the public interest analy sis is the citize n s’ rig ht to know ‘wha t their g overnme nt is up to.’” Id. (quoting U.S. Dep’ t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedo m o f t he Press
, 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989))

. Neither th e identity of the

re q u es t ing party nor t he purpose for which the party intends t o

use a document is rele vant to the public interest, but the availability

of the infor

mation throug h other sourc es is. Id

.7

The g overnme nt bear s the burden of sho wing that a substantial i n v as ion of privac y will occur if the documents are rele ased. See Ripskis v. U.S. Dep’ t of Hous. & Urban Dev

. , 746 F.2d 1, 3 (D.C. C ir. 19 8 4 ). I t may do so by aff idavits “‘if they contain rea sonable specific ity of detail rathe r than mere ly conclusory statements, and if they are not called into question by
contra d i ct o ry evidenc e in the rec ord or by evidenc e of ag ency bad fa ith.’” Judicial W

atch, Inc . v. U.S. Secre t Serv.
, 726 F.3d 208, 215 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (quoting Consumer Fed. of Am. v. Dep’ t of Agric. , 455 U.S. 283, 287 (D.C. Cir. 2006)).

B.

PL N does not contend that the documents still at i ss u e are out s ide the scope of exemption 6, but arg ues that the district
court err ed in balanc ing the individual’s privac y interest ag ainst
t h e public interest in disclosure. The reda cted informatio n 6 consists of individuals’ names and other persona l id entify ing information that would reve al the identity of a person rela ted to

a claim filed ag ainst the Bur eau. Prison Legal News v. Samuels
, 954 F. Supp. 2d at 28. Gover nment employ ees ha

ve “a t least a mi n i mal privac y interest in [t heir] employ ment history and job perf ormanc e evalua t ion.” Stern v. FBI
, 737 F.2d 84, 91 (D.C.

Am ic us cur ia e co ntends that the info rm at io n at is sue her e “is not 6 the ty pe that sho uld be exe m

pt under Exem

ptio n 6.” Bri ef of Am ic us Curia e The Repo rt er s Com m it te e fo r Fre edo m of the Pre ss , et al . a t 7. The co urt wil l n ot ente rt ai n an ar gum ent m ade fo r the fi rs t ti m e on appea l by an am ic us. Elli ott v. U.S. Dep’ t of Agric

. , 596 F.3d 842, 850 (D.C. Cir . 201 0); se e als o Cook v. Food & Drug Admin. , 733 F.3d 1, 5- 6 (D.C. Cir

. 2013 ). And, ev en if w e w er e to co nside r this ar gum ent, the re d actio ns at is sue her e – co ve ri ng indiv idual s’ nam es and ot her per so nal i denti fy

ing info rm at io n – fall w it

hin t he sc ope of

exe m ptio n 6, whic h exte nds to “bits of per so nal info rm at io n, suc h as nam es and addre ss es .” Judic ial W

atch, Inc

. v. Food & Drug Admin.
, 449 F.3d at 152 (quot ing Carte r v . U.S. Dep’t of Comme rc e , 830 F.2d at 391 ).8

Cir. 1984). We have extended t h i s protec tion to nong overnme nt employ ees whose names appea r i n g overnme nt

rec ords. See, e.g. , Painting & Drywall W ork Pres. Fund, Inc. v. Dep’ t of Ho u s

. & Urban Dev

. , 936 F.2d 1300, 1303 (D.C. C ir. 1991).

To carry its burden, the Bur eau’ s Vaughn index must

“‘ adequately descr ibe eac h

. . . [redaction] from a rele ase d document,’ and ‘must sta te the exemption claimed for eac h . . . [redaction] and ex p l ain why the exemption is rele vant.’” Summers v. Dep’ t of Justice
, 140 F.3d 1077, 1080 (D

. C

. Cir. 1998) (quoting Founding Church of Scientology v. Bell
, 6 03 F.2d 945, 9 4 9 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (per curia m)). The Bur eau submitt ed a decla

ration of Wil son J

. Moorer
, a para leg al specia list at the FOI A section of the Bur eau’ s g ener al counsel’s office
, which separ ates the documents at issue into cate g ories and specifie s the exemptions ap p l i ed to eac h cate g ory

. See Four th Supplemental Dec l. of Wil son J

. Moorer
, J oint Appendix 1478 (“Moor er Dec lara tion”). This decla ration supplements the latest Vaughn index the Bur eau produce d on Apri l 2 5
, 2012. J oint Appendix 134 9

. The Moorer Dec lara tion descr ibes eac h ty pe of document and the information reda cted. I t then provides

a g ener al rationale for protec ting pers onal identify ing information: to preve nt the public from knowing an individual suffe red some sort of i n j ury or loss, or was subjected to discrimination, beca

use association with the filing of a claim can be stigmatizing. I t then states that the public interest in knowing the identity of individuals involved in claims ag ainst the Bur eau is mini mal.

The primary ty

pes of cla i m s ag ainst the Bur eau are those inmates filed under the Fe dera l T ort Claims Act (“F TCA”) and those employ ees filed with the Equal Employ ment Opportunity Commi ssion or Merit Sy stems Prote ction Boa rd. Prison Legal News v. Samuels , 954 F. Supp. 2d at 28. Documents re lated to9

the tort claims include Tort Claim For m SF-95 which is “utiliz ed
to submit [ ] adm i n istrative claims” for “money damag es for persona l injury or death and/or damag e to or loss of proper ty ” pursuant to the FTCA. Moorer Dec l. ¶ 10. For discrimination claims Depa

rtment of Ju s ti c e Complaint of Discrimination For m DOJ 201A is “used wher e an applicant for Fe dera l Employ ment

or a Fe dera l Employ ee believes he or she has been discriminated ag ainst beca

use of rac e, color, sex .

. ., relig ion, national orig in, ag e, disability

. . ., sexual orientation, pare ntal status or repr isal by a fede ral ag ency ” and has prese nted the matter to the EEOC. Moorer Dec l. ¶ 80.

For eac h ty

pe of document, the Moorer Dec lara tion a sserts

a privac y interest beca

use the filing of a claim discloses that the individual who filed th e claim either “suff ere d some sort of i n jury
, loss or death” or “has alleg ed that he or she su ff er ed

some form of discrimination by the Bur eau of Prisons.” Moorer Dec l. ¶¶ 1 1, 79, 102; J oint Appendix 1483, 1524, 1547. This privac y interest is bolstered by “the fac t that it is not unusual or

uncommon for an individual to be stigmatiz ed by the filing of claims, reg ardle ss of whether the stigma has merit.” Id. ¶ 1 1, J oint Appendix 1483. As to the p u b l ic interest in FTCA claimants’ identities, the Dec lara tion asserts that “[t] he kn o wledg e a particula

r person filed a claim disclosed no information that would direc tly reve al the opera tions or activities of the fede ral g overnme nt,” and would “re veal only alleg ations rela ted to singula r incidents, as opposed to leg itimate finding s rela ted t o age ncy prac tice.” Id. Acc ording ly
, the “re lease of the names would make no contribution to the public understanding of a g overnme nt function.” Id. As to EEOC complaints, the Dec lara tion states “the disclosure of the specific claimant that filed an EEOC complaint falls outside the ambit of the public interest that th e FO I A was enac ted to serve ” and so the “re lease of the names would make n o contribution to the10
public understanding of a g overnme nt function.” Moorer Dec l. ¶ 79.

The Bur eau’ s fi n al Vaughn index was more detailed in

some respe cts than the Moorer Dec lara tion and less so in others. The index p ro v ided a specific descr iption of eac h document

– ty picall y t h e ty

pe of document, the date of the document, the number of pag es, an d i t s docket or exhibi t number. The “ra tionale for exemptions ” included summary asser tions like “re vea l i n g the name of the Claimant who filed an EEOC complaint and his or her addre ss would constitute a clea rly

unwar rante d invasion of persona l privac y ,” and the “re lease of the Compl ai n t ’s n ame and his or her addre ss would make no contribution to the public u n derstanding of a g overnme nt function.” Stroble Vaughn I ndex at 1. For some documents, the rationale for exemptions included the fac t that th e “claim involved an al l egation of sexual abuse,” e.g. Stroble Vaughn I ndex at 6-7, that the claimant “filed a claim of discrimination,”
e.g. id. at 25, or that the c laim was filed pur suant to the FTCA,
e.g. id. at 109. The reda ctions wer e not l i m ited to those filing
tort or discrimin at i o n claims, but in some instances also
encompa ssed t he allege d wrong doers or witnesses on the basis that “re veali n g t h e name of staff members mere ly alleg ed to have eng ag ed in disc ri m inatory conduct or alleg ed to have witnessed such, reg ardle ss if such char g es wer e susta in e d, would

co nstitut e a clea

rly unwar rante d invasion of personal privac y .” Stroble Vaughn I ndex at 5, 7-10.

Both the final Vaughn index and the Moorer Dec lara tion lump the privac y int erests of all claimants and any perpe trator or wit ness whose information i s reda cted into cate g ories based

on the ty pe of d o cument in which the individual’s information
appea rs. Both provide only cursor y statements such as t hose descr ibed above to justify the reda ctions. The district court11

acc epted this cate g orica l methodo logy

. Prison Legal News v. Samuels , 954 F. Supp. 2d at 28-29.

II.

A cate g o rica l approa ch to reda ctions or withholdings is permiss i b le under FOI A when “the FOI A litigation proce ss threa tens to reve al ‘the very information the ag ency hopes to protec t.’” Citi

zens for Responsibility & Ethics in W ashington v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justice
, 746 F.3d 1082, 1088 (D.C. Ci r. 2 0 14) (“ CREW ”) (quoting ACLU v. CIA
, 710 F.3d 422, 432 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). The g overnme n t may justify its withholdings and reda ctions “ca

teg ory -of- document by cate g ory -of- document, so long as its definitions of rele vant cate g ories are sufficie ntly d i stinct to allow a court to deter mine whether specific clai m ed exemptions are proper ly applied.” Id. (quoting Gal l a n t v. NLRB
, 25 F.3d 168, 173 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). The rang e of circ umstances included in the cate g ory must “ char acte ristically support[] an infere nce that the statutory require ments for exemption are sat i s fi ed.” Id. at 1088-89 (quoting Nation Magazine v. U.S. C ustoms Serv.
, 71 F.3d 885, 893 (D.C. Cir. 1995)).

Her e, it is difficult to se e how the cate g ories in the Moorer Dec lara tion support application of exemption 6. The cate g ories,
cente red as they are on specific ty pes o f fi l ed documents, include a wide rang e of claims cover ing v ar i ous deg ree s of privac y interests. As PL

N points out, the privac y interest of tort cl ai mants will be differ ent when they are claiming injury from

a slip and fall as compar ed to a sex u al as sault. The EEOC claims also prese nt a d i v erse picture and can hardly be considere d a cat ego ry that “‘c hara cter istically support[s] an infere nce’ that the statutory require ments for exempt i o n are satisfied.” CREW

, 746 F.3d at 1088-89 (alteration in orig inal) (quoting Nation Magazine , 71 F.3d a t 893).12

There is another problem with the cate g orica l approa ch here

– it fails to distinguish betwee n reda cting the identity of the alleg ed victim and the identity of t he al leg ed perpetra tor. This distinction is signific ant with r espec t to the employ ees’ interest in keeping their i nformation private. But the Bur eau ha s made

no eff ort to distinguish betwee n the privac y interests of employ ee s wh o are victims and thos e who are perpe trators. I n fac t, it has offe red littl e support for re d acting information that would identify perpe trators. The district court failed to g ive any weig ht to the distinction betwee n the acc used an d the acc user when ba lancing private a

nd public interests.

I n addition, the Bur eau has not been consistent in shielding the names of its employ ees ac cused of wrong doing. Whil e reda cting t h e n ames of those acc used of discriminating in Ex hibits 1 (Doc

. 110-5) and 2 (Doc

. 110-6), it did not reda ct the

name of a Bur eau employ ee who was the alleg ed perpe trator of

a sexual assault on an inm at e i n E x h ibit 3 (Doc

. 110-7). J oint Appendix 274, 291, 302. The Bur eau never explains its inconsistency

. Neither the Stroble Vaughn index nor the Moorer Dec lara tion provides insight into why the names of some alleg ed
perpe trators a

re r edac ted while other s are reve aled.

The c ateg ory

of cla ims and settlements under the F TCA is equally diverse, if not more so, than the claims of employ ment dis cr i m i nation. Consider, for example, a Bur eau employ ee’ s tort claim for persona l injury resulting from being hit in the ey e by a scre w thr o wn by another Bur eau employ ee, Ex hibit 53 (Doc

. 110-57), J oint Appendix 869-76; an inmate’s claim that he

was kept in prison 1 5 4 day s afte r his rele ase date, Ex hibit 102 (Doc

. 110-106), J oint Appendix 1307 -1 2; and the above mentioned sexual assault of an inmate, E x hibit 3 (Doc . 110-7), J oint Appe ndix 302-14. I n eac h case , the claimant’s name was reda cted, but in the ey e injury case , the name of the per petra tor and an inmate witness wer e also reda cted. Ex hibit 53 (Doc

.13
110-57). Yet in the case of the sexual a ssault, the perpe trator’ s

name wa s not reda cted. I n the scheme of things, one would think that an employ ee’ s ey e injury resulting from the throwing of a scre w is vastly differ ent from a sexual assault on an inmate and that t h e privac y interests of the vi ctims and perpetra tors in these two case s will be differ ent. These examples are sufficie nt to show that t h e p ri v acy interests involved in a g iven ty pe of claim do not fall within a single cate g ory that “cha rac teristically support[s] an infere nce that the statutory require ment s for exemption are satisfied.” CREW
, 746 F.3d at 1088-89 (alter ation in orig inal) (quoting Nation Ma g a z ine , 71 F.3d at 893). 7

The same can be said about the public interest in disclosure. PL N s eeks documents regarding “specific events that occur red within [ Bur eau] fac iliti es that will pr ovide insight to the public ab o u t how i ts fede ral prisons are being manag ed and opera ted
, and how its tax dollars are being expended.” Prison Legal News

v. L a p p i n , 436 F. Supp. 2d at 26. I dentify ing employ ees who repeatedly eng ag e in tortious or discriminatory conduct wi l l “‘she d[] light on an ag ency ’s perf ormanc e of its statutory duties.’” Consumers’ Ch ec kb o o k Ctr. for the Study of Servs.
, 554 F.3d at 1051 (alter ation in orig inal) (quoting U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press
, 489 U.S. 749,

Whil e the Bure au’s re dac ti ons ar e fa r fr om unifo rm betw ee n 7 doc um ents , they ar e al so inco nsis te nt w it hin a si ngl e Exh ibit. When

a vi ct im ’s nam e appea

rs bot h in a se tt le m ent doc um ent and in a public

co urt fil ing
, the Burea

u re dac ts the nam e from the fo rm er but not the la tt er

. See

, e.g. , Exhibit 54 (Do c. 110-58), Joint Appen d ix 878-87 (r edact ing nam e of dec ea se d inm at e in st ipula ti on fo r se tt le m ent and adm inis tr at iv e cl ai m but not in or der for tem por ar y gua rdia nship fo r the dec ede nt’s chil d); Exhibit 95 (Do c. 110-99), Joint Appendix 1239

- 45 (r eda ct in g n ame of cl ai m ant in FTCA cl ai m fo rm but not in a

se tt le m ent o f c iv il ac ti on)

.14

773 (1989))

. This, in turn, will further the public interest in ensuring that “disciplinary measure s imposed are adequate, and that those who are accountable are dealt with in an appropriate

manner .” Stern v. FBI

, 737 F.2d at 92. I t may also help root out the m isuse of public funds, an interest ty pically favor ing disclosure. See, e.g. , Mu l t i Ag Media LLC v. Dep’ t of Agric.
, 515 F.3d 1224, 1232-33 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Dobronski v. FCC
, 17 F.3d 275, 278- 80 (9th Cir. 1994).

The public intere s t i n disclosure will vary based on the individual’s role in a g iven claim – victim, perpe trator, witness, medical profe ssional diag nosing an inmate, and so forth – and the nature of the cl aim itself. These differ ence s in interest do
not war rant the cate g orica l ap p ro ach taken in the Moorer Dec lara tion and Stroble Vaughn I ndex. The specific form used
to lodge a claim reve als littl e abou t the publ ic i ntere st at s take, and so use of the claim form ca t ego ri cally to justify reda ctions does not ref

lect the balanc i n g of interests that FOI A require s. The Bur eau’ s decla

rations and Vaughn indices fal l s h ort of “‘a dequate ly descr ib[ ing] eac h

. . . [redaction] from a re l eased document’ and

. . . ‘explain[ ing] why the exemption is rele vant.’” Summers v. Dep’ t of Justice
, 14 0 F.3d at 1080 (quoting Founding Church of Scientology , 603 F.2d a t 949).

We decl i ne to eng ag e in the required balancing in the first instance and there fore will rema nd the case to the district court. On rema nd, the Bur eau must fashion a coher ent cata logue of the documents still in dispute and the district court must balanc e the privac y and public interes t s i n light of the Bur eau’ s new submissi ons.

We are not fore closing use of a cate g orica l approa ch. There may be g roups in which a cate g orica l approa ch is appropr iate. For instance, perha

ps the Bur eau can formulate a single rationale for shielding the names of medi ca l p rofe ssionals who trea t15

inmates, or for reda cting the names of prisoners who testify in FTCA claims beca

use they fea

r reta liation by Bur eau employ ees

or other inmates. An ag ency may even be justified in shielding from disclosure th e n am es of all employ ees without providing

a justification on an individual-by -individ u al basis. Judicial W a t ch

, Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin.
, 449 F.3d at 153 (citing Gallant
, 26 F.3d at 1 73). But the reda ctions in this case vary g rea tly
, and the cate g ories are not draw n based on the individual’s privac y interest or the public interest in disclosure.

The district court’s g rant of summary judgme nt to the Bur eau is reve rsed and the case is rema nded for further
proce eding s consistent with this opi nion.

So ordered

.