The Honor able Ma rk R. Kravitz , United States District Court J udg e for the District of * Connecticut, sitting by

desig nation. 1 06
- 53 52
- cv A s s oci at ed P r es s v. U ni t ed St at es D epar t ment of D ef ens e 

### UN ITED STA TES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E S EC ON D C IR C U IT

_____________________ August Term, 2007 (Argued: May

5, 2008 Dec ided: J anuar y 5, 2009) Docke t No. 06-5352-c v

_____________________ ASS OC I AT ED PRE SS, Plaintif f-Appellee

, -v.-
UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEF ENSE, Defendant-

Appellant
.

_______________________ BEF ORE: WI NTER, HAL L , Circuit Judges , KRAVI TZ , District Judge. *

_______________________ The De partment of D efe nse (“ DOD” ) appe als from a judgme nt of the United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of NewYork (Rakoff, J. ) gra nti ngthe As so c iate d Pr e ss (“ AP ”) s u m m ary

j u d gm en ti nl ar ge p artan d o rd er i n g DO D t o d i s cl o s e ( 1 ) d et ai n ee i d en t i fy i n g inf or matio n c on ta ine d in

re c or ds of

DO D’ s inve sti g atio ns of de ta ine e a

bu se at G ua

nta namo Nava l Ba y in Cuba by

United States milit ary

personne l and by

other de tainees, a

nd (2) identifying inf

ormation of deta inees’ f

amily members c ontained in per sonal letters to two detainee s submitt ed to an Administrative Revie w B oard, ba sed on the district cour t’s finding thatTh e Ad min istrativ e Re vie w B oa

rd wa s e sta bli sh e d to a sse ss a

nnua lly the ne e d to 1 continue to detain e ach e nemy combatant dur ing the course of the c urre nt and ong oing hostilities. Th is a dmi nis tr ativ e re vie w p e rm its e a c h e ne my c omb atant i n th e c on tr ol o f D OD at G ua nta namo Ba y Nava l Ba se to explain why he is no long er a

threat to the United States and its allies in the 2 the privac y

exemptions in the Fr eedom of Information Ac t (“F OIA”) did not apply . We hold that the detaine es and the ir family members do have a me asura ble privac y

interest in their identify

ing information and that the A P has failed to show how the public interest would be se rved by disclosure of this information. W e conc lude that the identifying inf ormation is exempt from dis c los ur e un de r t

he F OIA p ri va c y

e xemp tio ns . REVERSED.

_________________________ EL I Z AB ETH WOL STEI

N, Assistant United States Attorney for the Souther

n D i s tr i c to f

N e wY o r k f o r M i c h a e l J
. G ar c i a , U n i t e d S t at e s A t t o r

n e y ( J am e s L. Cott, S ara h S. Normand, of counsel), Ne w York, N Y, for Defendant-Appe llant
. D A V ID A. SCHUL Z (Adam J . Rappaport, on the brief ), L evine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, L L P, New Yor

k, NY, for Plainti

ff-Appellee
.

________________________ HAL L , Circuit Judge : The De partment of D efe nse (“ DOD” ) appe als from a judgme nt of the United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of NewYork (Jed S. Rakoff, J.) gr antingthe Associate d Press (“A P”) summary

judgme nt in larg e par

t and orde ringDOD to disclose identify ing information of Gua

ntanamo B ay

detainee s contained in DO D re cords doc umenting a lleg ations of
a bu se by mil ita ry pe rs onne l and

by oth e r d e ta ine e s, and

ide nti fy inginf or matio n o f f

amil y
me mbe rs c on ta ine d in

pe rs on a l le tte rs se nt t o tw o d e ta ine e s a nd su bmi tte d b y

tho se de ta ine e s to Administrative Review B oards ( “ARB ”) pursuant to the F ree dom of Information Ac t (“F OIA”) , 1on g oin garm e d c on fl ic t a g a ins t A l Q a ida and its a ff ili ate s a nd su pp or te rs or to e xpla in why

his rele ase w ould otherwise be appropr iate. 3 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2006). The district cour t found that the privac y

exemptions in FOIA did not protec t that information from disclosure , concludingthat the detaine es and the ir family members ha d n o c og niza

ble pr iva c y

int e re st a nd that th e pu

bli c int e re st i n d isc los ur e wa s g re at. We ho ld that the detaine es and the ir family members do have a me asura ble privac y

interest in the nondisclosure of the ir identifying inf ormation in these re cords a nd that the AP has fa iled to show how the public intere st would be furthe r ser ved by disclosure of the ir identities. We conclude that the FO I A privac y

exemptions protec t this i nformation fr om disclosure. We reve rse.

Bac kgr ound Th is c a se ari se s o ut o f t

wo F OIA r e qu e sts su

bmi tte d to DO D b y

AP, se e kin gdo c ume nts related to detainee treatment at Guantana mo Ba y . The fir st was made on N ovember 16, 2004, and re quested, inter alia, copies of doc uments containingalleg ations or ac counts of mistreatment of deta inees by

U.S. mili tary

personne l since January

2002, including a

ny disciplinary

action taken, a nd copies of doc uments containingalleg ations of detaine e-a g ainst-detaine e abuse . A
su bs e qu e nt Janu ary

18 , 2 00 5 r e qu e st w a s ma de fo r d oc ume nts re late d to ARB he ari ng s, including ( 1) transc ripts of testimony ; (2) wr itten statements and other documents provided by detainee s; (3) af

fidavits submitt ed by

witnesses to the ARB s; (4) alleg ations ag ainst the de ta ine e s; a

nd (5 ) e xplanatio ns of

de c isi on s ma de to r e le a se or tr ans fe r d e ta ine e s. AP filed a c omplaint on J une 9, 2005 to compel DO D to produce the re quested documents. DOD responde d by producing1,400 pag es of doc uments, many of which ha d
e xten siv e re da c tio ns . D OD mov e d f or summa ry jud g me nt o n F e br

ua ry 23 , 2 00 6, and

AP c ro ss-Although the docket a nd J oint Appendix ref

lect that DOD first moved for summary 2 judgme nt and AP subsequently cross-move d for summary judgme nt, in its order

the district court stated that: “AP’s motion for summary judgme nt is hereby

g rante d, and DOD ’s counter -motion denied.” Th e F OIA e xemp tio ns are fo un d at 5 U .S. C. § 55 2( b) , whic h p ro vid e s: 3 This section does not apply to matters that ar e-- (1 ) ( A) sp e c if

ic a lly a uth or ize d und e r c ri te ri a

e sta bli sh e d b y

an E xec uti ve or de r t o be ke pt s e c re t in

the int e re st o f n atio na l de fe ns e or fo re ig n p oli c y

and (B ) a re in fac t properly

classified pur suant to such Executive order ; ( 2 ) r e l at e d

s o l e l y t o th e i n t e r

n a l p e r s o n n e l r

u l e s an d p r a c t i c e s o f

ana g e n c y; (3) spe cifica lly

exempted from disclosure by statute (other

than sec tion 552b of this ti tle), provided that such statute (A) require s that the matters be withheld from th e publ ic i n s uch a ma nn er as to lea ve n o d is cret io n o n t he i ss ue, or ( B) establishes par

ticular c riteria f

or withholding or

ref ers to par ticular ty pes of matters to be withheld; (4) tra de sec rets and c ommercia l or financ ial information obtained f rom a pe rson and pr ivi le g e d o r c on fi de nti a l; (5) inter -ag ency

or intra- ag ency

memorandums or le tters which would not be av a i l a b l e b y l awt o a

p arty o th e r

th anana g e n c y i nl i t i g at i o nw i thth e a g e n c y; (6 ) p e rs onne l and

me dic a l f

ile s and sim ila r f ile s th e dis c los ur e of

wh ic h w ou ld c o n s t i tu t e a

c l e ar l y un w ar

r an t e d i n v a s i o no f

p e r s o n a l p r i v a c y; (7) r ecor ds or information compiled f or law e nforc ement purpose s, but only to the extent that the production of such lawenfor ceme nt rec ords or infor mation (A) c ou ld r e a so na

bly be e xpe c te d to int e rf

e re wi th e nf

or c e me nt p ro c e e din g s, (B ) w ou ld de pr ive a pe rs on of a ri g ht t o a fa ir tr ia l or an im pa rt ia l a dju dic atio n, (C ) c ou ld r e a s o n a b l y b e e x p e c t e d

t o c o n s t i tu t e anun w ar

r an t e d i n v a s i o no f

p e r s o n a l p r i v a c y, 4 moved for summar

y judgme nt on March 3, 2006. By the time the motions were a ddresse d by 2 the district court, the dispute ha d narr owed to four cate g ories of r edac tion: (1) identifying information of de tainees who alleg e abuse by DOD pe rsonnel, which D OD had r edac ted pursuant to FOIA Exempti ons 6 and 7(C); (2) identify ing inf ormation of deta inees involved in alleg ations 3(D) c ould rea sonably be expected to disclose the identity of a c onfidential sourc e, including a

State, local, or f

oreig n ag ency

or authority

or any private institution which fur nished information on a c onfidential basis, and, in the c ase of a re cord or information compiled by

criminal law e nforc ement author ity in the course of a c ri min a l inve sti g atio n o r b y an a g e nc y

c on du c tin ga

lawf ul n atio na l se c ur ity intelligenc e investig ation, information furnishe d by a conf idential source , (E) would disclose technique s and proc edure s for lawenfor ceme nt investigations or prosec utions, or would disclose g uidelines for la w enf orce ment investigations or prosec utions if such disclosure could r easona bly be expected to r isk circumvention of the law , or (F ) could re asonably be expected to e ndang er the life or phy sical sa fe ty of any ind ivi du a l; (8) c ontained in or re lated to examination, operating , or condition repor ts prepar ed by , on behalf

of, or f or the use of

an ag ency

responsible for

the re g ulation or supervision of fina

ncial instituti ons; or (9) g eolog ical and g eophy sical information and data, includingmaps, conc erning we lls
. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (2006). The exemptions are ref err ed to by

number, e .g ., “Exemption 6,” which can be found at 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)( 6).
5 of deta inee- ag ainst-detaine e abuse , which DOD had re dacte d pursuant to Exempti ons 6 and 7(C); (3) identify

ing inf ormation of deta inees in transf er- rele ase doc uments, which DOD had re dacte d purs ua nt t o E xemp tio ns 5 a

nd 6; a nd (4 ) i de nti fy

inginf or matio n o f d e ta ine e s’ fa

mil y me mbe rs in
c or re sp on de nc e se nt t o d e ta ine e s and su bmi tte d b y

the de ta ine e s in

the ir ARB pr oc e e din g s, which DOD had re dacte d pursuant to Exempti ons 3 and 6. On Se pte mbe r 2 0, 20 06 , th e dis tr ic t c ourt g ra nte d A P’ s mo tio n f

or summa ry jud g me nt i n larg e par t and denied D OD’s c ounter-motion, holding that AP “is entitled to nearly all the information it seeks.” F irst, it ruled that Ex emptions 6 and 7(C) did not apply to identifying inf or matio n o f d e ta ine e s w ho a lle g e a bu se by DO D p e rs onne l be c a

us e “ the pr iva c y

int e re st i s min ima l and

the pu bli c int e re st i s g re at” su c h th at “ dis c los ur e of thi s in fo rm atio n w ou ld6

constitute neither a

clea rly unwar rante d [under Ex emption 6] , nor an unw arr anted [under Ex emption 7(C)] invasion of personal priva cy .” At issue we re e ight f iles from investig ations into detainee mistreatment by milit ary personne l in which DOD ha d reda cted the na mes and other identify

ing inf ormation of the de tainees involved. The district court explained that Exe mpt ion s 6 and

7( C) re qu ir e the c ourt

to b a lanc e the pr iva c y

int e re st a nd pu bli c int e re st; it found that it was “ha

rd to see that any

substantial privacy

interest is involved” be cause the detainee s’ identities were fully known to the per sonnel they acc used and to the pe rsonnel who responde d to the acc usations. I t further explained that detainee s, like other prisoner s, have minimal privacy

rig hts, and surmised moreove r that “individuals detaine d incommunicado without many

proce dural saf

eguards . . . would wa

nt their plights, and ide ntities, publi cized.” The district cour

t based the latter conc lusion on the fact that thre e for mer de tainees ha d issued a repor t in 2004 alleg ing that they had bee n beate n and mistreate d in Guantanamo; other detaine es had conve y ed such a

buse alleg ations to the public throug h their attorne y s; and still ot her detainee s had par

ticipated in hung er strike s to protest alleg ed abuse . Ag ainst what it determined to b e a min ima l pr iva c y

int e re st, the dis tr ic t c ourt we ig he d th e “ c on sid e ra

ble pu bli c int e re st i n lear ning mor e about DO D’s tre atment of identifiable detainee s, whether they have be en abuse d, and whe ther such a

buse has be en prope rly

investigated.” It found that AP had made a showing of evide nce “ that would war rant be lief by

a re asonable person that the a lleg ed Gove rnment impropriety

might have occur

red.” Thus, it concluded that be cause the public intere st is gre at and the pr ivacy

interest minimal, the reda ctions had to be re moved and the ide ntifying information disclosed.DO D h a s si nc e pr od uc e d th e se do c ume nts , unr e da c te d, a nd do e s n ot c ha lle ng e thi s 4 de c isi on on a pp e a l. 7 Se c on d, the dis tr ic t c ourt

c on c lud e d th at id e nti fy

inginf or matio n o f d e ta ine e s invo lve d in alleg ations of detaine e-a g ainst-detaine e abuse did not fall under Exemptions 6 and 7(C). The documents at issue we re r eports of a lleg ations of detaine e-a g ainst-detaine e abuse rec orded by mil ita ry pe rs onne l. I

n c on sid e ri ngthe pr iva c y int e re st o f t

he de ta ine e s, the dis tr ic t c ourt fi rs t fo un d th at th e int e re st o f t he de ta ine e s a lle g inga

bu se wa s mi nim a l be c a

us e the ir purp os e in makingthe alleg ations was “to br ing the m to light.” Althoug h the cour t commented that the pr iva c y int e re st o f d e ta ine e s a g a ins t w ho m a lle g atio ns of a bu se we re ma de “ might b e sli g htl y
mor e we ig hty ,” it r e ite rate d th at pr iso ne rs have mod e st p ri va c y ri g hts . T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso pointed out that the g overnme nt had “f ailed to make a

particula rized showing of

why any g iven one of [the detaine es] has a mater ial privac y interest in kee ping his identity secr et.” It theref

ore
c on c lud e d th at any

pr iva c y int e re st w a s “ su

bs tanti a lly

outw e ig he d b y

the pu bli c int e re st i n knowingmore a

bout the context in which DOD was c alled upon to eva luate the a lleg ations,”
rea soning f

urther that this i nquiry

could only

be explored if the pa

rticulars a bout the person whose c onduct was in que stion were known. Specifica lly , the district court e x plained that without the names, AP would not know the deta inees’ nationalities or relig ions; withoutthat inf or matio n it wo uld be imp os sib le to s c rutin ize DO D’ s c on du c t. Th ir d, the dis tr ic t c ourt

fo un d th at id e nti fy

ing inf or matio n o f d e ta ine e s in

tr ans fe r- re le a se documents did not fall under Ex emptions 5 and 6 and must be disclosed. The district cour t 4
rea soned that Exemption 5, which ex empts “inter- ag ency or intra- ag ency

memorandums or letters which w ould not be available by law to a pa

rty other than a

n ag ency in liti g ation with the8

ag ency ,” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) , did not apply to the transfe r-r elea se docume nts beca use they do not fall within the scope of the deliber ative proc ess privileg e. It also conclude d that Ex emption 6 did not apply

beca use the g overnme nt did not offer more than “c onclusory speculation” that dis c los ur e of

the inf or matio n c ou ld s ub

je c t de ta ine e s a

nd the ir fa mil y me mbe rs to h arm . On the fina l issue, the district court held, with one e x ception, that the r edac ted identifying information of de tainees’ family members c ontained in their letter s submitt ed by the detaine es at their ARB proce eding s, did not fall under Exemptions 3 or 6. Ex emption 3 protects fr om disclosure matter s that are “spec ifically exempted from disclosure by statute . . . provided that
su c h s tatut e (A ) r e qu ir e s th at th e matte rs be wi thh e ld f ro m th e pu

bli c in s uc h a

mann e r a s to le ave no dis c re tio n o n th e iss ue , o r ( B ) e sta bli sh e s p art ic ula

r c ri te ri a fo r w ithho ldi ngor

re fe rs to particula r ty pes of matter s to be withheld.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)( 3). The district c ourt rea soned10 U.S.C. § 130c provides that a “ national sec urity officia l . . . may

withhold from 5 pu bli c dis c los ur e oth e rw ise re qu ir e d b y law s e ns iti ve inf

or matio n o f f

or e ig n g ov e rnme nts in acc ordanc e with this section.” The rele vant re quirements ar e: (b) Information elig ible for e x emption.--F or the purpose s of this section, information is sensitive information of a f oreig n g overnme nt only

if the national se c ur ity of fi c ia l c on c e rn e d ma

ke s e a c h o f t

he fo llo wi ngde te rm inatio ns wi th respe ct to the information: (1) That the information was pr ovided by , otherwise ma de av ai l ab l e b y , o r p ro d

u ce d i nco o p er at i o nwi th , a f

o re i gn g overnme nt or international or g anization. (2 ) T hat th e fo re ig n g ov e rnme nt o r i nte rn atio na l or g anizatio n is withholding the infor

mation from public disclosure ( rely ing f or th atd et erm i n at i o no nth e w ri t t en re p re s en t at i o no f t h e f o re i gn g overnme nt or international or g anization to that effec t). (3 ) T hat any

of the fo llo wi ngc on dit ion s a re me t: (A ) T he fo re ig n g ov e rnme nt o r i nte rn atio na l or g anizatio n r e qu e sts , in writing, that the information be withheld. (B ) The inf

ormation was pr ovided or made available to the United States Governme nt on the condition that it not be relea sed to the public. (C) The inf

ormation is an item of information, or is in a categ ory of information, that the national se curity officia l conce rned ha s specifie d in regulations prescr ibed under subsection (f) as being information the re lease of which w ould have a n adver se ef

fec t on the ability of the United States Gove rnment to obtain the same or simil ar infor

mation in the future. 10 U.S.C. § 130c(b) (2006) (footnote omitted). 9 that w hil e 10 U. S.C. § 1 30 c is a n a pp lic a ble wi thh old ingstatut e , the do c ume nts did no t argua bly 5 or log ically

fall within its scope and thus did not fall under E x emption 3. As to Ex emption 6’s applicability to the family

members’ identifying inf ormation, the district court found this to be “a closer c all.” In its previous decision in Associated Press v . U. S.In AP I , th e dis tr ic t c ourt

he ld t hat id e nti fy

inginf or matio n o f d e ta ine e s in

tr ans c ri pts 6 from military

tribunal hea

ring s was not exempted from disclosure under Exemption 6. AP I , 410 F. Supp. 2d at 151 (“ Depa rtment of De fense has fa iled on this mot ion to establish, by undisputed a dmi ssi ble e vid e nc e , a

ny c og niza ble pr iva c y

int e re st o n th e pa

rt of the de ta ine e s th at w ou ld war rant the a cross-the -boar d application of Exemption 6 the defe ndant her e see ks.”). AP had made a FOIA re quest for the transcr ipts from the milit ary tribunals wher e the g overnme nt had de te rm ine d th at de ta ine e s w e re e ne my c omb atants ; D OD pr od

uc e d r e da c te d c op ie s o f t

ra ns c ri pts and other related documents. Id. at 149. Even thoug h the ar g ument had not bee n proper ly raised, the c ourt a lso c on sid e re d D OD ’s argume nt t hat th e fa mil y me mbe rs a

nd oth e r t hir d p art ie s w ho se ide nti fy inginf or matio n h a d b e e n r e da c te d f ro m th e do c ume nts a lso ha d a pr iva c y int e re st i n nondisclosure. Id. at 153-54. The court c oncluded that these third parties did not have a c og niza ble pr iva c y

int e re st i n n on dis c los ur e of the ir ide nti tie s b e c a

us e the y la c ke d a re a so na ble expectation of privac y

in that information. Id. at 156-57. Some of the doc uments included Red Cr os s Me ssa g e s ( “ RCMs ” ) f ro m de ta ine e s’ fa

mil y me mbe rs ; up on

the dis c los ur e of

the se documents, the Red Cross spec ifically reque sted that DOD not re lease any more RCMs. DOD did not appeal f

rom the dec ision in AP I

. AP does not challeng e the district cour t’s decision to uphold reda ction of De tainee 7 b(2)’ s wife’ s identifying inf ormation. 10 De p’ t of De f. , 410 F. Supp. 2d 147, 150, 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“ AP I ”), the district court ha d 6 state d th at th ir d p art ie s h ave little e xpe c tatio n o f p ri va c y in i nf or matio n d isc los e d at th e ARB proce eding s, but it had invit ed DOD to make a “ particula rized showing” that a spec ific deta inee had re tained a r easona

ble expectation of priva cy with respec t to a specific item of information. In th e c ur re nt c a se , th e dis tr ic t c ourt ana ly zed su c h e vid e nc e pr e se nte d b y the g ov e rnme nt. As to Detaine e b(1) , the district court found that there w as no indication that the de tainee’ s testimony would invite retaliation fr om the Taliban whe re he had testified that his involvement with the Taliban wa s at a lowe r leve l than char g ed. As to De tainee b( 2), the c ourt found that the g overnme nt had met its burden to show that he ha d reta ined a r easona ble expectation of priva cy . De ta ine e b( 2) , in

his te sti mony

be fo re the ARB , h a d s a id h e “ de sp ise d” the Ta lib an; h e wa s a lso reluc tant to share a

letter fr om his wife bef

ore the ARB. Thus, a s to Detainee b(2), the district court uphe ld DOD’s r edac tion of the detaine e’s wif e’s identify

ing inf ormation from he r letter. 711

DO D a pp e a ls f ro m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on , b ut c ha lle ng e s o nly its ru lin g s w ith respe ct to (1) r edac tion of identifying inf ormation in rec ords re lating to a lleg ations of detaine e mistreatment and de tainee- ag ainst-detaine e abuse ; and (2) r edac tion of identifying inf ormation of de ta ine e s’ fa

mil y me mbe rs . Discussion Stand ard of Review We review de novo the district court’s grant of summar y judgme nt in a FOIA ca se. W ood v. FBI , 432 F.3d 78, 82 ( 2d Cir. 2005). Appli cable Law FOIA was e nacte d “to fa cilitate public ac cess to Gove rnment docume nts,” U.S. Dep’ t of State v. Ray , 502 U.S. 164, 173 (1991), and w as desig ned “to pier ce the veil of administrative
secr ecy and to open a g ency

action to the lig ht of public scrutiny .” De p’ t of Ai r F orc e v . R os e , 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976) (inter nal quotation marks omitted). Consistent with FOIA’s purpose and desig n, “the strongpresumption in favor of disclosure plac es the burde n on the ag ency to justi fy the withholding of

any reque sted documents.” Ray , 5 02 U. S. at 17 3. Th e a g e nc y mus t di sc los e its re c or ds “ un le ss i ts d oc ume nts fa ll w ith in o ne of the sp e c if

ic , e nume rate d e xemp tio ns se t f or th in the Act.” W

ood , 432 F.3d at 82-83 (interna l quotation marks omitted). FOIA exemptions are to be construe d narr owly , “re solving a ll doubts i n favor of disclosure,” and “[t]he gove rnment bear s the burden of

establishing that any

claimed e x emption applies.” Id. “That burden re mains with the ag ency

when it see ks to justi fy

the re daction of ide ntifying inf ormation in a par

ticular document as w ell as whe n it seeks to withhold an entire doc ument.” Ray , 502 U.S. at 173. Re da c tio n, ho we ve r, is “ e xpre ssl y a uth or ize d b y

F OIA, ” wh ic h in dic ate s th at Co ng re ssIn Reporters Committee , the Supreme Court he ld “as a cate g orica l matter that a third 8 pa rt y ’s re qu e st f

or law e nf or c e me nt r e c or ds or

inf or matio n a bo ut a pr ivate c iti zen

c an r e a so na

bly be expected to invade that citizen’s privacy .” 489 U.S. at 780. The Court rea soned that
“ c ate g or ic a l de c isi on s ma y be a pp ro pr iate and

ind ivi du a l c ir c ums tanc e s d isr e g ard e d whe n a c a se fits into a ge nus in which the bala nce c hara cter istically

tips in one direction.” Id. at 776. DOD argues that the priva cy

interests at stake here are rea dily assessed on a

cate g orica l basis. The AP counter s that individualiz ed conside ration of those inter ests is appropriate. We are cog nizant of the Supreme Court’s holdingin Reporters Committee . H ow e ve r, be c a us e our d isp os iti on

of thi s appea l would be the same reg ardle ss of how we considere d the privac y interests ac commodated in Ex emptions 7 and 6 for those pe rsons whose infor mation may

be disclosed he re, w e do not n e e d t o d e c i d e w h e th e r

w e mu s tan a l yz e th e mc at e g o r i c a l l y o r i n d i v i d u a l l y. Although Fed. Labor Relations Auth. 958 F.2d at 508, addre ssed the applica bility of 9 Ex emption 6 to the information soug ht throug h FOIA, its discussion of the approa ch for applying FOIA’s priva cy

exemptions is apposite here . Whil e Exemptions 6 and 7(C) provide diffe ring 12 “re cog nized that the policy of informingthe public about the ope ration of its Gover nment can be
a de qu ate ly

se rv e d in so me c a se s w ith out unne c e ssa ri ly c omp ro mis ingind ivi du a l inte re sts in privac y .” Id. at 174. Det ainees’ Identifyi ng In form ation – Exem ption 7(C) Ex emption 7(C) exempts from disclosure “r ecor ds or information compiled f or law enfor ceme nt purposes” when produc tion of such re cords or information “c ould rea sonably be expected to constitute an unwa rra nted invasion of per sonal privac y .” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) (C). E x e mp t i o n7 ( C ) r e qu i r e s a c o urtt o “ b a l an c e th e p u

b l i c i n t e r e s ti nd i s c l o s ur e a g a i n s tth e [ p r i v a c y] interest Cong ress intende d the Exempti on to protect.” U. S. Dep’ t of Justice v. Re porters Comm. , 48 9 U .S. 74 9, 77 6 ( 19 89 ). Th e fi rs t qu e sti on to a sk in d e te rm ini ngwh e the r E xemp tio n 7 (C )
a pp lie s is wh e the r t

he re is a ny pr iva c y int e re st i n th e inf

or matio n s ou g ht. Fed. Labor Relations 8 Au th. v . U

.S . D e p’ t of Ve te ra ns Af

fai rs , 9 58 F .2 d 5 03 , 5 09 (1 99 2) (“ On ly wh e re a pr iva c y int e re st is impl icated doe s the public interest for which the infor

mation will serve bec ome re levant and require a bala

ncingof the c ompeting inter ests.”). The Supreme Court has explained that such 9deg ree s of protec tion, the privacy interest prote cted by

eac h is the same for

purposes of our analy sis. Id. at 509 (“ That Exemptions 6 and 7(C) pr ovide diffe ringlevels of pr otection once a pr iva c y int e re st i s im

pli c ate d is ir

re le va nt t o d e te rm ini ngthe so rt of pr iva c y int e re st that mu st first be shown be fore protec tion is afforde d at all.”) . We thus draw fr om case law interpr eting both Ex emptions 6 and 7(C) to elucidate the contour s of the priva cy interest prote cted, a s well as the public intere st that would be furthe red by disclosure. In doing so, w e re cog nize that “the g re ate r p ro te c tio n o f p ri va c y e xten de d und e r E xemp tio n 7 (C ) g oe s to the de g re e of inv a sio n to this privacy

interest that will be tolerated bef ore disclosure is prohibited.” Id. at 510. 13 privac y interests include “ the individual interest in avoidingdisclosure of pe rsonal matter s” as well as “ the intere st in independenc e in makingcer tain kinds of important decisions.” Re po rte rs Comm. , 489 U.S. at 762. I t further explained that “both the common law a nd the literal understanding s of privac y encompa ss the individual’s control of information concer ning his or her pe rson,” id. at 763, and thus that there is a rec og nized “privac y interest in kee ping pe rsonal fac ts away

from the public e y e,” id. at 769. I t is well established that identifying inf ormation such as na

mes, addre sses, and other persona l information falls within the ambit of privac y
conce rns under

FOIA. Se e Ro se , 425 U.S. at 380-81 (r ecognizi ngprivac y interest in identifying inf or matio n a bo ut c a de ts r e da c te d f

ro m c a se summa

ri e s a ri sin gout of

e thi c s h e ari ng s at th e Ai r F or c e Ac a de my

); Ray , 5 02 U. S. at 17 5- 77 (r e a so nin gpr iva c y int e re st i n n ame s o f i nte rv ie we e s is signific ant wher e their na mes could then be linked to other per sonal information in the int e rv ie ws ); W

ood , 432 F.3d at 88 (rec og nizi ngprivac y interest in identities of g overnme nt inv e sti g ator s w he re dis c los ur e c ou ld r e su lt i n h a ra ssm e nt a

nd e mba rr a ssm e nt) ; Fed. Labor Relations Auth. , 958 F.2d at 510-11 (re cog nizi ngprivac y interest in names a

nd addre sses of fede ral e mploy ees)
. We have sa id that “FO I A re quires only a mea surable inter est in privacy to trigg er the application of the disclosure ba lancingtests.” Fed. Labor Relations Auth. , 958 F.2d at 510.14

Thus, “once a more than demi nim is privac y interest is implicated the c ompeting inter ests at stake must be balanc ed in orde r to dec ide whethe r disclosure is pe rmitted under F OIA.” Id. As fo r t he pu bli c int e re st a g a ins t w hic h th e pr iva c y int e re st i s to be we ig he d, the Sup re me Court ha s ma de c le ar t

hat th e re is o nly

on e re le va

nt i nte re st, name ly , “ to o pe n a g e nc y a c tio n to the light of

public scrutiny .” Reporters Comm. , 4 8 9 U. S
. at7 7 2 (qu o t i n g Ro se , 425 U.S. at 372). The public intere st “ca

nnot turn on the purposes f or which the reque st for information is m ade,” and “the identity

of the re questing party

has no bea

ringon the merits of his or he r F OIA re quest.” Id. at 77 1. Whe the r t

he pu bli c int e re st i n d isc los ur e wa rr ants the inv a sio n o f p e rs on a l pr iva c y is deter mined by the degree to which disclosure w ould further the cor e purpose of F OIA, which focuse s on “the c itiz ens’ r ight to be inf ormed a bout what their g overnme nt is up to.” Ray , 502 U. S
. at1 7 7 (qu o t i n g Reporters Comm. , 4 89 U. S. at 77 3) . T he Sup re me Court ha s a lso sa id t

hat: Where the pr ivacy

conce rns addr essed by

Ex emption 7(C) are prese nt, the exemption requires the pe rson re questing the information to establish a suff icient re a so n f or the dis c los ur e . F ir st, the c iti zen mus t sh owthat th e pu

bli c int e re st soug ht to be advanc ed is a sig nificant one , an intere st more spec ific than having the information for

its own sake. Second, the citizen mustshow the information is l ike ly to a dv anc e that inte re st. Othe rw ise the inv a sio n o f p ri va c y is unwar rante d. Nat ’l Arc hiv es &Re c or

ds Ad mi n. v . F av ish , 5 41 U. S. 1 57 , 1 72 (2 00 4) . I f t he re qu e ste r a sse rt s that the re ason for

the disclosure is to uncove r g overnme nt impropriety or neg lige nce, “ the reque ster must establish more than a bare suspicion in order to obtain disclosure .” Id. at 174. Rather, “ the re quester must produc e evide nce that would warr ant a be lief by a re asonable person that the alleg ed Gove rnment impropriety might have occur

red.” Id. Wit h these standa

rds in mind, we turn to the spec ific re dactions at issue in this case
.These f iles contain deta iled repor ts about eig ht differ ent alleg ations of alleg ed 10 mis c on du c t by

mil ita ry pe rs onne l, i nc lud inginc ide nts of sp ra yingde ta ine e s w ithwate r h os e s, striking de tainees, usingpepper spray ag ainst detainee s, splashing de tainees w ith cleaning pr od uc ts, and oth e r m istre atme nt. 15 The fir st two sets of documents at issue a re ( 1) eig ht files containingrec ords documenting alleg ations of detaine e abuse by milit ary personne l; and (2) documents conta ining r eports of

10

a lle g atio ns of

de ta ine e -a g a ins t- de ta ine e a bu se . I n b oth se ts o f d oc ume nts , D OD re da c te d a ll ide nti fy inginf or matio n o f t

he de ta ine e s invo lve d, a sse rt ingthat it did so to p ro te c t th e de ta ine e s’ persona l privacy

pursuant to Exempti ons 6 and 7(C). As a preliminary

matter, it is undisputed that these doc uments were “compiled f or law e nforc ement purpose s” so as to fa ll under Exe mpt ion

7( C) . Ind e e d, the re c or ds we re c omp ile d to do c ume nt a lle g atio ns of a bu se and to impose disciplinary

sanctions ag ainst mili tary personne l and detaine es whe re a ppropriate
. See Am . Ci v il Li be rti es U

nio n v . D e

p’ t of De f. , 543 F.3d 59, 66- 67 (2d Cir. 2008) (c erta in United States Army ’s photog raphs g ather ed duringits Crim inal Investig ation Command investigations
we re do c ume nts c omp ile d f or law e nf or c e me nt p ur

po se s) ; c f. As pin v . D e p’ t of De fe ns e , 491 F.2d 24, 29 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (holdingthat Peers Commission R eport wa s produce d as an inve stigatory fi le c omp ile d f

or law e nf or c e me nt p ur

po se s) . We pr oc e e d to the Exe mpt ion 7( C) ana ly sis wi th this in m ind. (1 ) P ri va c y Inte re st We c on sid e r whe the r t

he de ta ine e s h ave a

ny pr iva c y int e re st i n th e no nd isc los ur e of the ir
names a nd identifying inf

ormation in the rec ords containingalleg ations of abuse by milit ary personne l and by

other de tainees. That interest nee d only be more than demi nim is to trigg er the application of the balanc ing te st to determine whe ther disclosure is permitted under F OIA. See16

Fed. Labor Relations Auth. , 958 F.2d at 510. For the rea sons stated below, we conclude that the detainee s, both those who have suf fer ed abuse and those who a re a lleg ed to have perpe trated abuse, ha ve a me asura

ble privac y

interest in the nondisclosure of their names and other ide nti fy inginf or matio n in the se re c or ds
. The priva cy

interest prote cted by

Ex emption 7(C) is an intere st in “avoiding disclosure of persona l matters” a

nd “kee ping pe rsonal fa cts awa y from the public e y e.” Reporters Comm. , 489 U.S. at 762, 769. An individual’s privac y interest is particula

rly pronounce d wher e disclosure could lead to e mbarra ssment or reta liation. Ray , 502 U.S. at 176-77. In Ray , the Supreme Court explained that Haitians who had be en re turned to Ha iti under an a g ree ment with the Haitian g overnme nt that it would not prosecute them for illega lly leavingthe country

had a substantial pr iva c y int e re st i n th e no nd isc los ur e of the ir name s in tr ans c ri pts fr om i nte rv ie ws wi th t he U. S. Depa rtment of State. Id. The State De partment intervie wed the H aitian re turnee s to determine wh e the r t he Ha iti an g ov e rnme nt w a s in de e d ma kin gg oo d o n it s p ro mis e no t to pr os e c ute tho se returne d. Id. at 168. The Supre me Court, quoting the State D epar tment, rea soned that “disclosure of the intervie wee s’ identities could subject them or the ir families to embar rassment in t he ir so c ia l and

c omm un ity re latio ns hip s, ” and

that “ the pr iva c y

int e re st i n p ro te c tin gthe se individuals from any

reta liatory

action that mig ht result from a r enew ed intere st in their aborted attempts to emigr ate must be g iven g reat weig ht.” Id. at 176-77. F inally , the Court noted that the F OIA r e qu e ste rs int e nd e d to make dir e c t c on ta c t w iththe Ha iti an r e tur ne e s, and that th isIn assessingthe privac y interest of the Haitian re turnee s, the Supreme Court pointed out 11 that the State Depa

rtment interviews ha d been c onducted unde r a pr omise of conf identiality
. Ray , 502 U.S. at 177. This fac t, though not dispositive in the analy sis, was g iven a “ specia l signific ance ” bec ause the returne es may have disc losed information at those inter views that they would not have ha d they

known that their identities would be publicly disclosed. Id. 17 possibili ty

“magnifies the importanc e of ma intaining the c onfidentiality of their identities.” Id. at 177. 11 Eac h of these c oncer ns is involved in thi s case . We first consider the detainee s who alleg edly have be en abuse d by

milit ary personne l or other de tainees. Cer tainly they have a n interest in both keepingthe per sonal fac ts of their abuse from the public e y e and in avoiding disclosure of the ir identities in order to pre vent embar rassment. As victims of abuse , they are entitled to some protection of pe rsonal information that would be reve aled if the ir names we re associate d with the incidents of abuse . The disclosure of their names could ce rtainly subject them to embarr assment and humiliation. We disag ree with the district court’s c onclusion that the detaine es who a lleg edly have be e n a bu se d d o n ot h ave any

su bs tanti a l pr iva c y

int e re st b e c a

us e the y , li ke pr iso ne rs , h ave little
re a so na ble e xpe c tatio n o f p ri va c y . A lth ou g h th e de ta ine e s h e re are ind e e d li ke pr iso ne rs , th e ir F ourt h A me ndme nt r e a so na

ble e xpe c tatio n o f p ri va c y is n ot t he me a sure by

wh ic h w e a sse ss their per sonal privac y

interest prote cted by

FOIA. Rather, the privac y interest for

purposes of Ex emption 7(C) is broad a nd encompa sses “the individual’s c ontrol of information conc erning his or her pe rson.” Reporters Comm. , 489 U.S. at 763. Moreove r, the district cour t’s rea soning that the detaine es alleg edly abused w ould want their plig hts publiciz ed is also inapposite to theWe n ote , w ith out de c idi ng , th at th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s c on c lus ion in t his re g ard a pp e ars to 12 be so me wh at sp e c ulativ e ; it ba se d it s d e te rm inatio n th at a bu se d d e ta ine e s w ou ld w ant t he ir inc ide nts of

a bu se pu bli c ize d o n th e re po rt s o f a lim ite d numb e r o f d e ta ine e s w ho op te d to c ome forwa rd. By finding that the abuse d detainee s have a measura ble privac y

interest in the 13 nondisclosure of the ir names a nd identifying inf

ormation in rec ords documentingthis abuse, we do no t me an to su g g e st, or in a ny wa y c on do ne , th at th e g ov e rnme nt m ay us e thi s p ri va c y

int e re st to maintain a “ve il of administrative secr ecy” ar ound events oc curr ing a t Guantanamo Ba

y . See Ro se , 4 25 U. S. at 36 1. We m ake tw o p oints i n th is r e g ard . F ir st, the ide nti fi c atio n o f t his privac y interest mea

ns only that the FO I A re quester w ill have to show how re lease of the detainee s’ names a

nd identifying inf

ormation will further the public interest, and doe s not give the g overnme nt a blank che ck to kee p such information from the public eye. Second, w e do not me an to su g g e st that de ta ine e s sh ou ld b e pr e ve nte d in any wa y fr om c omi ngfo rw ard

pu bli c ly with alleg ations of mistreatment or a buse at the ha

nds of DOD in Gua

ntanamo; this opinion does not empower

the g overnme nt to prevent such public disc losure by the detaine es themselves ba sed on thi s r e c og nize d p ri va c y

int e re st. 18 privac y interest at stake here
. That a de tainee mig ht want to voluntarily disclose information 12 publicly does not authorize the g overnme nt to disclose that information, and the district cour t
c i t e s n o l awt o s u

p p o rtth atp r o p o s i t i o n , n o r d o w e f i n d an y. Cf. Associated Press v . U.S. Dep’ t 13 of Justice , No. 07-1384-c v, 2008 WL5047793, at *3, *4 n.2 (2d Cir. De c. 1, 2008) ( holding that the commutation petition filed by J ohn Walker L indh was exempt from disclosure unde r Ex emptions 6 and 7(C) and notingthat, althoug h ultimately an agree ment could not be re ache d by the par ties, prior to the appe al the petitioner c onsented to the re lease of his petition continge nt upon reda ction to protect a ny information that might c ompromise his privacy or saf ety – a condition that was not ac cepta ble to the re quester A P). Second, we consider the detainee s who are alleg ed to have abused othe r deta inees. Eve n more so than the vic tims of this alleg ed abuse , these a lleg ed abuse rs have a sig nificant priva cy interest in kee ping the ir identities undisclosed. I t is li kely that identifying the m could subject them to embarr assment and humiliation. The district court a cknowledg ed that “the privac y19

interests of the de tainees a bout whom the alleg ations were made mig ht be slightly more weig hty ,” but ultimately

found that as pr isoners, their pr ivacy rig hts “are extremely

modest.” Ag ain, we disa g ree with the district court’s findingin this reg ard a nd conclude that the detaine es
acc used of a

busing othe r deta inees have a me asura ble privac y

interest that trig g ers Exemption 7(C)’s prote ction of their identify ing inf ormation. (2 ) P ub lic Inte re st Havingestablished that the de tainees ha ve a me asura

ble privac y

interest in the nondisclosure of the ir names a nd other identify

ing inf ormation, we turn to the que stion of whether disclosure of that information would further the public intere st such that disclosure would be a w arr anted invasion of the detainee s’ per sonal privac y . See R eporters Comm. , 489 U. S. at 77 1 ( “ We m

us t ne xt ad dr e ss what f

a c tor s mi g ht warrant

ani n v a s i o no f

th e [ p r i v a c y] int e re st d e sc ri be d [a

bo ve ].” ) ( e mph a sis in t

he or ig ina l) . We un de rt ake thi s p art of the ana ly sis mindful that there is only one re levant public intere st, that of “open[ing ] age ncy action to the light of public sc rutiny ,” id. at7 7 2 (qu o t i n g Ro se , 4 25 U. S. at 37 2) , a nd that th e pu

bli c int e re st

“ c ann ot t ur n o n th e purp os e s f

or wh ic h th e re qu e st f

or inf or matio n is ma de ” no r o n “ the ide nti ty of the re questing party ,” id. at 771. The Supreme Court has made it cle ar that once a privac y interest is identified, disclosure is unwarr anted unde r Exemption 7(C) unless the requeste r ca n show a “ sufficie nt rea son for the disclosure.” Fa v ish , 5 41 U. S. at 17 2. Th e “ c iti zen mus t sh owthat th e pu

bli c int e re st s ou g ht t o be adva nced is a signific ant one, a

n interest more specific than havingthe information for its own sake,” and the c itiz en “must [also] show the information is l ikely to advanc e that intere st.” Id. In the c on te xt of

a dd re ssi ngwh e the r d isc los ur e of re da c te d n ame s a

nd ide nti fy inginf or matio n is20

war rante d, the Supreme Court ha s expl ained that whe re disclosure of the doc uments themselves adequately

serve the public intere st, a reque ster must show how “the a ddition of the reda cted identifying inf

ormation” would “ shed any additional light on the Gove rnment’s c onduct.” See Ray , 502 U.S. at 178 (holding that “the public inter est in knowing whether the State Depa

rtment has ade quately

monitored Haiti’s complianc e with its promise not to prosecute r eturne es” ha d been “ adequately

serve d by

disclosure of the reda cted inter view summaries a

nd that disclosure of the unre dacte d documents would there fore constitute a cle arly unwar rante d invasion of the int e rv ie we e s’ pr iva c y ” ); see also U. S. De p’t of Defensev. Fe d. Labor Relations Auth. , 5 10 U. S. 487, 497 (1994) ( concludingthat disclosure of a g ency barg ainingunit employ ees’ addre sses “would re veal little or nothing about the employing a g encie s or their a ctivities” in determining that “the r eleva

nt public interest supportingdisclosure in this case is neg ligible” ). This Court has simil arly said that “disclosure of information affe ctingprivac y interests is permissible only if the i n fo rm at i o nre v ea l s s o m et h i n g dire c tly about the cha

rac ter of a

g overnme nt ag ency

or off icial.” Hopkins v. U

. S. Dep’ t of Hous. & Urban Dev

. , 929 F.2d 81, 88 ( 2d Cir. 1991) (holdingthat dis c los ur e of

name s and

a dd re sse s so ug ht “ wo uld

sh e d n o li g ht o n H UD ’s pe rf or manc e in enfor cingthe pre vailing w ag e laws” ) (e mphasis in the orig inal). We now consider whether the public interest would be se rved by the disclosure of

the detaine es’ names and identify ing inf or matio n, and , if

so , whe the r t

hat inte re st o utw e ig hs the de ta ine e s’ pr iva c y int e re st i n nondisclosure. AP asserts thre e ar g uments as to how the public intere st would be serve d by disclosure of the detaine es’ na

mes and identify

ing inf ormation: (1) the infor

mation is necessa

ry to provide context for DOD’ s response to the a buse alleg ations beca

use it would allow the public to know21

the de ta ine e s’ natio na lit ie s and re lig ion s; ( 2) the inf

or matio n w ou ld a llo w the pu bli c to e va luate DOD’ s other ac tions with respect to these de tainees, inc luding tra nsfer and re lease decisions; and (3) the inf ormation would allow the public to see k out the detainee s’ side of the story . For the
rea sons that follow, we c onclude that these arguments are unavailingand that at most disclosure would only

modestly further the public intere st. That is, any public interest ser

ved by such dis c los ur e is s ig nif

ic antl y outw e ig he d b y

the de ta ine e s’ pr iva c y

int e re st. AP’ s f ir st a rgume nt a

pp e ars to s ug g e st that th e a lle g e d g ov e rnme nt i mpr op ri e ty in handlingthese a lleg ations of var ious abuses may be tied to the nationalities or r elig ions of the de ta ine e s invo lve d. In e sse nc e , A P imp lie s th at D OD may have re sp on de d d if

fe re ntl y to alleg ations of abuse dependingon the nationalities or re ligions of the a bused deta inees. Without that underlying a ssumption, knowing the deta inees’ nationalities or relig ions would not serve the pu bli c int e re st b e c a

us e it w ou ld s he d n o li g ht o n what th e g ov e rnme nt i s u p to . A P’ s a

rgume nt i n th i s r e g ar d

i s s qu ar e l y f

o r e c l o s e d b y Fa v ish , in which the Supreme Court held: [W]he re the re is a

pr iva c y int e re st p ro te c te d b y

Exe mpt ion

7( C) and the pu bli c interest beingasser

ted is to show that responsible off icials ac ted neg lige ntly

or oth e rw ise imp ro pe rl y

in t he pe rf or manc e of the ir dutie s, the re qu e ste r m

us t establish more than a

bare suspicion in order to obtain disclosure . Rather, the re qu e ste r m

us t pr od uc e e vid e nc e that w ou ld w arr ant a be lie f b y a re a so na ble person that the a lleg ed Gove rnment impropriety might have occur

red. Fa v ish , 5 41 U. S. at 17 4. F avis h a sse rt e d th at th e g ov e rnme nt h a d c ov e re d u p th e de ta ils surroundingthe appa

rent suicide of

Vincent F oster, Jr., deputy counsel to then Preside nt Cli nton, and re quested picture s from the de ath sce ne throug h FOI A. Id. at 160-62. The Supreme Court
ru le d th at “ F avis h h a s n ot p ro du c e d a ny e vid e nc e that w ou ld w arr ant a be lie f b y a re a so na ble person that the a lleg ed Gove rnment impropriety might have occur

red.” Id. at 17 5. Simi larl y22

he re , A P ha s p ro du c e d n o e vid e nc e that D OD re sp on de d d if fe re ntl y to a lle g atio ns of

a bu se dependingon the nationalities or re ligions of the de tainees involved. B eca use there is no
e vid e nc e of

g ov e rnme nt i mpr op ri e ty

in t hat r e g ard , w e c ann ot f

ind that th e pu

bli c int e re st w ou ld b e f urth e r e d b a s e d o na r at i o n a l e g r o un d e d

i nd i s c l o s ur e o f

ani n d i v i d

u a l ’ s r e l i g i o no r

n at i o n a l i ty. AP’ s se c on d a

rgume nt, that th e name s a nd ide nti fy inginf or matio n w ou ld a llo w the pu bli c to t ra c k th e se de ta ine e s’ tr e atme nt i n o the r a sp e c ts o f D OD a c tio ns , in c lud ingtr ans fe r a nd re le a se de c isi on s, de se rv e s mo re atte nti on . I f t he pu bli c kn e w whic h s pe c if

ic de ta ine e s w e re inv olv e d in the a lle g atio ns of

a bu se by mil ita ry pe rs onne l and

by oth e r d e ta ine e s, the n it

wo uld be po ssi ble to
se e wh e the r t

he de ta ine e s’ inv olv e me nt i n th os e a lle g e d a bu se s a ff e c te d h owthe y

we re oth e rw ise treated throug hout various administrative proc edure s. Pursuant to the particular FOIA re quests at issue in this case, DOD rele ased doc uments relatingto ARB hea ring s where the g overnme nt deter mined whether

the detaine es should be re lease d, transfe rre d to the custody of anothe r g ov e rnme nt, or

fu rt he r d e ta ine d. Thus , if

the ide nti tie s o f t

he de ta ine e s invo lve d in

the a bu se alleg ations were known, it might be possible to see whether those alleg ations aff

ecte d the g ov e rnme nt’ s d e c isi on

to t ra ns fe r, re le a se , o r c on tin

ue to d e ta in t

he m. A lth ou g h und e r t

his
ratio na le the pu

bli c int e re st m ig ht b e fu

rt he r s e rv e d, the sp e c ulativ e natur e of the re su lt i s insufficient to outweig h the detaine es’ pr ivacy interest in nondisclosure. AP’ s th ir d a

rgume nt, that th e inf

or matio n w ill a llo w the pu

bli c to s e e k o ut t

he de ta ine e s’ side of the story , calls upon a “ derivative use” the ory . See R ay , 502 U.S. at 178. That theory posits that the public interest can be rea d more broa dly to include the ability

to use reda cted information to obtain additional as y et undiscover ed information outsi de the g overnme nt files. See id. In Ray , the FO I A re quester a rgued that the public inter est would be ser ved by disclosure23

of the Ha iti an r e tur

ne e s’ name s b e c a

us e that in fo rm atio n w ou ld a llo w the pu bli c to c on du c t it s
own inte rv ie ws of

the re tur ne e s to se e if

the y c or ro bo rate d th e inf

or matio n in the State Depa rtment’s interview

transcr ipts. Id. at 177. The Supre me Court reje cted this argument but chose not to dec ide square ly the question of “whether a ‘de rivative use’ theory

would ever

justify
re le a se of inf or matio n a bo ut p ri vate ind ivi du a ls” be c a us e it c on c lud e d th at “ the re is n oth ingin the re cord to sug g est that a sec ond series of interviews with the a lrea dy -interview ed re turnee s would produce any

rele vant information that is not set forth in the docume nts that have a lrea dy been pr oduced.” Id. at 179. In so deciding , the Supreme Court re asoned that “[m] ere speculation about hy pothetical public bene fits cannot outweigh a demonstra bly signific ant invasion of privac y .” Id. Al tho ug h th is C ourt

ha s n ot a dd

re sse d th e iss ue of

wh e the r a

de ri vativ e us e the or

y is cog nizable under F OIA as a valid way

by which to asser

t that a public intere st is furthere d, we have indicated that it may not be. See H

opkins , 929 F.2d at 88. I n Hopkins , we a ddresse d the Union’s ar g ument that the public intere st would be serve d in disclosing HUD ’s pay roll rec ords beca use it would “ena

ble the Union to deter

mine whether

HUD is fa irly

and ade quately

enfor cing the pre vailing w ag e laws.” Id. We s a id “ dis c los ur e of thi s in fo rm atio n w ou ld s e rv e the pu bli c interest only

insofar a s it would allow the Union to contact individual employ ees, who may then dispute the ac cura cy

of the data re flec ted in the re cords.” Id. Refusingto order suc h disclosure,
we c ommented that “[w]ere we to compel disclosure of persona l information with so attenuated
a re lationship to gover

nmental ac tivity , howeve r, we would open the door to disclosure of virtually all persona l information, there by evisce ratingthe FO I A privac y exemptions .” Id.24

We n e e d n ot d e c ide tod ay wh e the r a

de ri vativ e us e the or

y wo uld e ve r j us tif

y the re le a se of pe rs on a l in fo rm atio n b e c a us e we fi nd

that th e pr iva c y

int e re st o f t

he de ta ine e s in nondisclosure of the ir names a nd identifying inf

ormation is not outweighe d by any minimal pu bli c int e re st that mi g ht b e se rv e d b y su c h d isc los ur e . D isc los ur e of thi s in fo rm atio n is , there fore , exempted under Exemption 7(C) beca use such disclosure “could r easona bly be expected to constitute an unwa rra nted invasion of per sonal privac y .” B eca use we find that Exe mpt ion

7( C) a pp lie s to the re da c tio ns of de ta ine e s’ ide nti fy

inginf or matio n, we do no t ne e d to addre ss the applicability

of Exemption 6. Reporters Comm. , 489 U.S. at 762 n.12. F am ily Mem bers’ Identifyin g Inf orm ation – Exem ption 6 Ex emption 6 exempts from disclosure “per sonnel and medic al files and similar f iles the disclosure of which would constitute a c lear ly unwar rante d invasion of per sonal privac y .” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). To de te rm ine wh e the r i de nti fy inginf or matio n ma

y be wi thh e ld p ur su ant t o Exe mpt ion

6 w e mus t: ( 1) de te rm ine wh e the r t he ide nti fy

inginf or matio n is c onta ine d in “per sonnel and medic al files and similar f iles;” and (2) balanc e the pubic ne ed for the inf or matio n a g a ins t th e ind ivi du a l’ s p ri va c y int e re st i n o rd e r t o a sse ss whe the r d isc los ur e wo uld constitute a cle arly

unwar rante d invasion of per sonal privac y . W ood , 432 F.3d at 86. The deter mination of whether

Ex emption 6 applies requir es bala ncingan individual’s rig ht to privacy
a g a ins t th e pr e se rv atio n o f F OIA’ s b a sic purp os e of op e nin ga g e nc y

a c tio n to the light o f p ub lic scrutiny
. Ro se , 4 25 U. S. at 37 2. “ On ly wh e re a pr iva c y int e re st i s im

pli c ate d d oe s th e pu

bli c interest for

which the infor

mation will serve bec ome re levant and r equire a bala ncingof the competinginterests.” Fed. Labor Relations Auth. , 9 5 8 F
. 2 d at5 0 9
. A s e x p l a i n e d

a b o v e , “ F O IA require s only

a mea surable inter est in privacy to trigg er the application of the disclosure25

balanc ing te sts.” Id. at 510. “An inva sion of more than a demi nim is privac y interest prote cted by Exe mpt ion

6 mu st b e sh own to be ‘c le arl y unwa rr ante d’ in o rd e r t o p re va il o ve r t he pu bli c interest in disclosure.” Id. Un de r E xemp tio n 6 , th e re fo re , th e g ov e rnme nt’ s b ur de n in establishing the require d invasion of privac y is heavier

than the burde n in establishing invasion of privac y

under Exemption 7(C). Ray , 5 02 U. S. at 17 2. “ Exe mpt ion 6 d oe s n ot p ro te c t a g a ins t dis c los ur e e ve ry

inc ide nta l inva sio n o f p ri va c y –o nly su c h d isc los ur e s a s c on sti tut e ‘c le arl y
unwar rante d’ invasions of per sonal privac y .” Ro se , 425 U.S. at 382. The sec ond set of docume nts at issue are persona l letters sent to two detaine es, De tainee b( 1) and De ta ine e b( 2) , f

ro m th e ir fa mil y me mbe rs thr ou g h th e Re d Cr os s. Th e se Re d Cr os s Messag es (“ RCMs”) were submitt ed to DOD by the detaine es at their A RB hea ring s. DOD
re da c te d th e name s and

a dd re sse s o f t he de ta ine e s’ fa

mil y me mbe rs in t

he se le tte rs purs ua

nt t o FOIA Exempti ons 3 and 6. Preliminarily , we note that the parties do not dispute that the letter s at issue ar e conside red “ personne l and medica l files and similar files” w ithin the meaningof Ex emption 6. Although the g overnme nt does not indicate the spe cific c ateg ory into which the family members’ letters fa ll, it appears that “ simil ar f iles” would be the closest desc ription. The phrase “similar files” ha s a broa d meaningand enc ompasses the g overnme nt’s “re cords on a n individual which can be identified as a pplying to that individual.” See U.S. Dep’ t of State v. W ashington Post Co. , 4 56 U. S. 5 95 , 6 00 -0 2 ( 19 82 ). Sin c e the re da c te d r e c or ds at is su e a pp ly to the detaine es whose f

amily members se ek prote ction, those rec ords ar e “similar f iles” within the meaningof Exemption 6. Cf. Ray , 502 U.S. at 173 (“[R] eports fr om which identifying information was de leted unquestionably apply to the particula

r individuals who had bee n returne d and intervie wed . . . they are ‘similar files’ within the mea ning of the exemption.”).26

We now consider whether the family

members of

Detaine e b(1) and De tainee b( 2) have more than a demi nim is privac y interest in the disclosure of their names and a ddresse s. (1 ) P ri va c y

Inte re st The Supreme Court indicated that “pr ivacy encompa ss[ es] the individual’s control of information conc erninghis or her pe rson,” Reporters Comm. , 489 U.S. at 763, and made “cle ar that an in div idu a l ha s a

g e ne ra l pr iva c y

int e re st i n p re ve nti ngdis se min atio n o f h is o r h e r n ame and home a ddress,” Fed. Labor Relations Auth. , 958 F.2d at 510. This Court has recognized that third parties to proc eeding s have a cog nizable privacy

interest prote cted by

the FO I A privac y exemptions
. See P erlman v. U .S. Dep’ t of Justice , 312 F.3d 100, 106 ( 2d Cir. 2007), vacate d and remande d , 541 U.S. 970 (2004), aff’d 380 F.3d 110 ( 2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (conc luding that witnesses and third pa rties to the I

NS report of

investigation “possess strongprivac y interests, bec ause be ing ide ntified as par t of a lawenfor ceme nt investigation could subject them to ‘embar rassments and ha

rassment’” ). The district cour

t ordere d disclosure of the family members’ names a

nd addre sses except for De tainee b( 2)’s wife rea soning that she reta ined a r easona ble expectation of priva cy in her identifying inf

ormation such that it was withheld prope rly under Exemption 6. For the r easons
no te d a bo ve , w e dis a g re e wi th t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

that de te rm ini ngwh e the r a pe rs on ha s a
re a so na ble e xpe c tatio n o f p ri va c y is the mann e r b y

wh ic h to ana ly

ze t he pe rs on ’s pr iva c y

int e re st under Exemption 6. Th e g ov e rnme nt c on te nd s th e fa mil y me mbe rs have a

su bs tanti a l pr iva c y

int e re st i n avoidingdisclosure of the ir identifying inf ormation bec ause that disclosure “c ould place the family members at risk of harm ba sed on their c onnection to detaine es who provide d testimony27

to the ARBs that DO D believe s is likely to be per ceive d by

the Taliban ( including f

ormer associate s of one de tainee) as hostile, or eve n traitorous.” A ccor ding to DO D, the testimony of the two detaine es at their A RB hea ring s, which appe ars “ cooper ative with the United States a nd hostile or disloy al to the Taliban, c ould subject the deta inees’ f amily members to re taliation.” We e mph a size that “ the fo c us , in a sse ssi ng a c la im und e r E xemp tio n 6 , mu st b e so le ly upon what the r equeste d information re v e als , not upon what it might lead to.” Ray , 502 U.S. at 1 8 0 (S ca l i a, J
. co n cu rr i n g) ( em p h as i s i nth e o ri gi n al ). T h er ef o re , DO D’ s cl ai mth at , al th o u gh

“ ne c e ssa ri ly un c e rt a in, ” its a sse ssm e nt “ that th e de ta ine e s’ ARB te sti mony c ou ld p ut t

he ir fa mil y
me mbe rs at r isk

of re ta liatio n b y

te rr or ist s d iss atis fi e d w ithde ta ine e s’ te sti mony to a U. S. tribunal,” is not the foc us of our inquiry under Exemption 6. Here , it is clear that the na mes and addre sses of the f

amily members, if disclose d, would reve al that par ticular pe rsons are relatives of ce rtain deta inees he ld at Guantana mo Ba y . I f disclosed, the infor

mation would also reve al that the family

members a

re r elatives of c erta in Guantanamo Ba y detainee s who testified about the Taliban be fore the ARBs. We disagree with the district court’s viewthat the testimony of Detaine e b(1) might be pe rce ived as a dverse to the Taliban while the testimony of De tainee b( 2) might not be, a

nd we r efuse to speculate about the natur e or e x tent of any adver sity involved. We f ind that di sc los ingthe fa

mil y me mbe rs ’ n ame s a

nd a dd re sse s to the AP, and

c on se qu e ntl y

to the public at lar g e, involves a me asura ble privac y

interest bec ause the information that would be
reve aled by

disclosure is the ty

pe of infor

mation that a per son would ordinarily not wish to make known about himself or he rself. See id. at 18 1. We n owpr oc e e d to ba lanc e that pr iva c y int e re st ag ainst FOIA’s basic purpose of openingag ency

action to the lig ht of public scrutiny
. (2 ) P ub lic Inte re st28

“Goa ls other than openingag ency action to public scrutiny

are deeme d unfit to be
acc ommodated under

FOIA when the y

clash with privac y

rig hts.” Fed. Labor Relations Auth. , 958 F.2d at 510-11. AP c on te nd s th at th e “ pu

bli c ha s a str on gint e re st i n e va luatin gwh e the r D OD pr op e rl y followed-up on [the deta inees’ mistake n identity ] claims.” DOD counte rs that the “na mes and addre sses of fa

mily members c ontained in their pe rsonal letter s to detainee s reve al nothing a bout DOD’ s action. The only

conce ivable value of those name s is to provide AP with leads for inv e sti g atin gthe de ta ine e s’ c la ims .” We a g re e wi th D OD . We do no t se e and AP f a ile d to explain how revea ling the f amily members’ names a

nd addre sses would inform the c itiz ens about “what their g overnme nt is up to.” See R ay , 5 02 U. S. at 17 7. We c on c lud e that th e pu bli c int e re st in e va luatin gwh e the r D OD pr op e rl y fo llo we d- up on

the de ta ine e s’ c la ims of

mis take n id e nti ty have be en ade quately

serve d by

the disclosure of

the re dacte d information and that disclosing
names a nd addre sses of the f

amily members would c onstitut e a c lear ly unwar rante d invasion of the family

members’ privac y

interest bec ause suc h disclosure would not shed a ny light on DOD ’s
a c tio n in c onne c tio n w iththe de ta ine e s’ c la ims at is su e he re . B e c a us e Exe mpt ion

6 e xemp ts fr om d isc los ur e the ide nti fy inginf or matio n o f t

he de ta ine e s’ fa

mil y me mbe rs , w e do no t a dd re ss the a pp lic a bil ity of Exe mpt ion

3 to the se re da c tio ns .

Conclusion We hold that identifying inf ormation of the de tainees in the r ecor ds documenting alleg ations of abuse and identifying inf ormation of deta inees’ f

amily members in letter s submitt ed to the g overnme nt are exempt from FOIA disclosure unde r Exemptions 7(C) and 6 respe ctively . The judg ment of the district cour t is REVERS ED.29