Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/2016/prison-legal-news-v-eousa-co-petition-public-records-2010/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:28:38+00:00

Document:
unsealed evidence in a public trial.
This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
petition on June 14, 2011.
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C.
This Court should grant certiorari and reverse.
view audiovisual evidence first hand. The D.C.
already disclosed as unsealed evidence in open court.
See, e.g., Cottone v. Reno, 193 F.3d 550, 553–56 (D.C.
Cir. 1999); Inner City Press/Cmty. on the Move v. Bd.
open court not once but twice. App. 17–19.
“limited” disclosure to the courtroom audience, App.
Government [was] up to.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice v.
this Court itself has recognized, see, e.g., Brown v.
Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910 (2011); Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S.
should grant certiorari and reverse.
agency disclosure.” Reporters Committee, 489 U.S.
at 754 (quoting Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S.
Rose, 425 U.S. at 361 (quotation marks omitted).
dominant objective of the Act.” Rose, 425 U.S. at 361.
death-scene.” Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v.
any Government agency or official.” Id.
FOIA Exemption 6 also protects personal privacy.
the invasion be “clearly” unwarranted. § 552(b)(6).
no longer at issue here. App. 5 n.4.
. . . records to cover up that abuse.” United States v.
LaVallee, 439 F.3d 670, 677–79 (10th Cir. 2006).
abusing prisoners. App. 57–58 (Prendergast Decl.
therein. App. 64 (Wright Decl. ¶ 5).
Special Housing Unit. App. 2.
sentenced to life imprisonment rather than death.
Sablan, United States v. Sablan, No. 00-cr-531-WYD01 (D. Colo. Jan. 22, 2007). Id.
subsequent administrative appeal. App. 44–45, 48.
7(A), 7(B), and 7(C). App. 48–49.
request for the video and photographs.
4; see Cottone, 193 F.3d at 554–56.
any other audio, including the Sablans’ voices. Id.
EOUSA also dropped its reliance on exemption 6.
individuals’ privacy interests under FOIA.” App. 8.
trials as disclosure of a “limited nature.” App. 10.
strong privacy interest in the images.” App. 10.
The Tenth Circuit acknowledged that the D.C.
in the public domain.” Id.
rehearing and rehearing en banc on March 16, 2011.
Government has invoked FOIA exemption 7(C). App.
decision thus conflicts with decisions of the D.C.
Circuit and Second Circuit and creates a circuit split.
Government to resist disclosing audiovisual records.
those portions that it still possessed. See Davis v.
would have been no remand and no disclosure.
Government did not need to disclose any of the tapes.
“those physically present in the courtroom.” App. 10.
right to see this evidence for itself.
“Public Domain” Doctrine that the D.C.
a permanent public record.” Cottone, 193 F.3d at 554.
Press, 463 F.3d at 248–49; see also Watkins v. U.S.
Bureau of Customs & Border Prot., ___ F.3d ___, No.
the D.C. Circuit and the Second Circuit”).
Application of CBS, Inc., 828 F.2d 958, 959 (2d Cir.
331 U.S. 367, 374 (1947).
these records and they have not been sealed. App. 24.
domain.” Cottone, 193 F.3d at 554.
that must be withheld under another statute. App.
554–55 (exemption 3); Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 169 F.3d 16, 19 (D.C. Cir.
Afshar v. Dep’t of State, 702 F.2d 1125, 1130–34 (D.C.
Cir. 1983) (exemptions 1 and 3).
organized crime in New Orleans. 968 F.2d. at 1278.
applied the “public domain” doctrine. The D.C.
7(C) would have blocked their disclosure.
airing the exact same records in a public trial.
occurred under the Tenth Circuit’s rule. If the D.C.
have affirmed — not remanded — in Davis.
[were] necessarily public in various courthouses.” Id. at 1047.
Government’s to assert or waive, not the family’s.
Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 495 (1975).
the public record at trial.
fundamentally subverts the notion of a public trial.
longer successfully invoke exemption 7(C).
public. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D cmt. b.
public.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1301 (8th ed. 2004).
administration of justice.” Id. at 492.
documents.” Cottone, 193 F.3d at 554; Nixon v.
States v. Hickey, 767 F.2d 705, 708 (10th Cir. 1985).
government is a party.” FTC v. Standard Fin. Mgmt.
from extreme violence. See infra 29–30, 32–33.
official court records.” Cox Broadcasting, 420 U.S.
public record. Id. at 471, 496.
§ 652D cmt. b.; cf. Samuel Warren & Louis D.
privacy in matters in the public domain.” David A.
of its exhibits. Standard Fin. Mgmt., 830 F.2d at 410.
public can never access them ever again.
subject it to adverse publicity or embarrassment.
compiled data is publicly available elsewhere.
about an agency’s own conduct.” Id. at 773; see id.
App. 12–13; infra Part II.C.
materials under seal either time. 489 U.S. at 759.
contending that they are too private to share.
Reporters Committee thus confirms that the D.C.
here need not be released.
prosecuting crimes, and adjudicating them in courts.
violence at the hands of other prisoners.” Farmer v.
particularly secure. See BOP Statement § 541.21.
violence in federally-run prisons more broadly.
and the rejection of the death penalty in the courts.
committed in the most secure cellblock in a highsecurity federal prison.
described many times, including by the courts below.
— it was seeing the video itself.
photographs to its opinion. Id. at 1924 & Appx. B, C.
prisons it operates. See App. 62–64 (Wright Decl.
interest in disclosure — the violence is the story.
depend on the Government for protection.
substitute” for the originals. Regan, 468 U.S. at 678.
Research Ctr., Generations and their Gadgets 8 (Feb.
E.g., App. 9–10; United States v.
States v. Graham, 257 F.3d 143, 152 n.5 (2d Cir.
Reporters Committee, 489 U.S. at 780.
could rely on exemption 7(C) to resist disclosure here.
Government could not have relied on this exemption.
district court, it waived those arguments on appeal.
an important question of federal law.
Liberties Union of Colorado, Amici Curiae.
victim’s family. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C).
open court to the jury and to the public audience.
order regarding the custody of exhibits.
records under FOIA was improper.
further ordered images of the Sablans’ genitalia to be obscured.
On appeal, PLN does not challenge that aspect of the order.
audio, we need not decide the issue.
statements of the BOP officials.
the light of public scrutiny.” Dep’t of Air Force v.
is the dominant objective of the Act.” Id.
enforcement records. Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v.
interests against the public interest in disclosure.
Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 776, 109 S. Ct.
1468, 103 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989).
images from the first portion of the video together.
parties have briefed the issues as such.
Clinton, at the scene of his death. Favish, 541 U.S.
Id. at 170, 124 S. Ct. 1570.
mutilation as do the images at issue here.
images or otherwise will be harmed.
interests under FOIA are independent interests.
admitted under seal is relevant to a waiver analysis.
to place the images in the public domain.
eliminated any expectation in privacy.
distinct privacy interest in the images themselves.
retains a strong privacy interest in the images.
to be an unwarranted invasion of privacy interests.
personal views of the harm they might suffer.
concern in Favish. See 541 U.S. at 168, 124 S. Ct.
weighed against the public interest in disclosure.
records properly be withheld under Exemption 7(C).
See Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 771, 109 S. Ct.
understanding of agency activities in two ways.
significantly increasing the cost of prosecution.
the public understanding. See Forest Guardians v.
depict any BOP conduct prior to Estrella’s death.
the situation have been fully disclosed.
in the second portion of the video, now released.
contents of the video and photographs.
invasion of the family’s personal privacy.
unless they fall within one of the exemptions. U.S.
that is supported in the record and raised on appeal.
Pullman v. Chorney, 712 F.2d 447, 449 (10th Cir.
were previously introduced at the Sablans’ trials.
F.3d 550, 554 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
public trial. 6 193 F.3d at 550. In Cottone, the D.C.
Trentadue v. Integrity Comm., 501 F.3d 1215, 1236 (10th Cir.
introduced at a public trial. Id. at 552–53.
revealed the intercepted information. See id. at 555.
provide support for PLN’s position.
Justice, 968 F.2d 1276, 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
other types of public disclosures under FOIA.
made, under the First Amendment. See United States v.
Gonzales, 150 F.3d 1246, 1256 (10th Cir. 1998).
with the executive branch or with Congress.
60 Minutes, et al., Amici Curiae.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
fall within two enumerated exemptions in FOIA.
a legal determination on the application of FOIA exemptions.
determination of legal issues on undisputed facts.
purported drinking of Mr. Estrella’s blood.
physical injuries that were inflicted on Mr. Estrella.
William and Rudy Sablan for Mr. Estrella’s murder.
evidence and played for the courtroom audience.
was in reference to the autopsy photographs.
Mgmt. Agency, 410 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2005).
construed to effectuate this goal. Trentadue v.
Integrity Comm., 501 F.3d 1215, 1226 (10th Cir.
exemption de novo. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).
information that applies to a particular individual.
State v. Wash. Post Co., 456 U.S. 595, 602, 102 S. Ct.
of information concerning his or her person.” U.S.
provides greater protection for privacy interests.
would likely advance the articulated public interest.
government misconduct is required. See id. at 174.
Comm., 489 U.S. at 756.
sought was admitted as evidence in a criminal trial.
See Cottone v. Reno, 193 F.3d 550, 554 (D.C. Cir.
government pursued the death penalty.
nothing that directly links the circumstances of Mr.
death penalty is clearly a governmental activity.
government’s decision to seek the death penalty.
The Court finds Prison Legal News’s suggestion that Mr.
private and achieve emotional closure.
therefore, such use did not waive the family’s privacy interests.
with an analysis of Exemption 7(C).
an unwarranted invasion of their personal privacy.
exemption excuses the release of Section Two.
BOP, the sharp weapon used in mutilating Mr.
obscured to preserve their privacy interests.
interest of Mr. Estrella’s family.
Mr. Estrella’s death and achieve emotional closure.
Therefore, analysis of Exemption 6 is not necessary.
were admitted as evidence at the Sablan trials.
Legal News contends that no exemption applies.
and two tape recordings, which it heavily redacted.
been placed in the “public domain”.
Cottone is limited by its facts and its reasoning.
the Army, 244 F.3d 357, 364 n. 13 (5th Cir. 2001).
Or it could eliminate the need for a FOIA request.
rights. Indeed, no showing of any waiver by Mr.
Estrella’s family has been made.
extinguished by previous limited public disclosure.
information was otherwise publicly available.
does not negate the application of Exemption 7(C).
portion of the video that does not depict Mr.
Exhibit No. 20 on an Exhibit List dated Jan.
for Colorado, Case No. 1:00-cr-00531-WYD.
by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in USA v.
Legal News v. Lappin, 436 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D.D.C.
be resolved in the appropriate legal forum.
number. Please reply to the Vermont address above.
Information Act/Privacy Act has been processed.
the various United States Attorneys’ Offices.
light of the provisions of both statutes.
exempt from the access provisions of the Privacy Act.
to this letter explains the exemptions in more detail.
jury material which is retained in the District.
may or may not be responsive to your request.
these records, you must submit a new request.
] See additional information attached.
are located; or in the District of Columbia.
with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).
public interest in conditions inside federal prisons.
simply is no substitute for the power of video footage.
footage is completely different and vastly superior.
inform the public about the workings of the BOP.
recent federal criminal trial of Senator Ted Stevens.
were released to the media within hours.
disappointing departure from standard practice.
I, Alan Prendergast, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
liberal arts college in Colorado Springs.
Association of Alternative Newspapers (AAN).
violence and security problems at the U.S.
Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado (USP Florence).
in my initial reporting on the Estrella murder.
prison safety, BOP policy, and staff training.
assistance before and during his own fatal attack.
BOP, access to such materials is critical.
the BOP refuses to address these issues.
advance the public interest in many ways.
the ongoing problems at USP Florence.
leisure, and will to commit such a gruesome crime.
prosecutions against William and Rudy Sablan.
which it was entitled, See Prison Legal News v.
prison and jail conditions and litigation.
submitted on behalf of Prison Legal News to the U.S.
not received by me until June 13, 2007 via facsimile).
appeal denial is attached hereto as Exhibit 3-B.
their lack of supervision is also extremely unusual.
evidence available, when it is available.
isolation cell for solitary confinement.
drunk on alcohol at the time of the murder.
Estrella’s killing and how they were obtained.
response by BOP staff to the Estrella murder.
for Summary Judgment on November 20, 2008.
(where there is media interest in the exhibit).
data, including maps, concerning wells.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 § 552
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 652
 v.

 v. 
 v. 

§ 652
 v.

 § 541
 v.

 v. 
 § 552
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 § 1331
 v.

 § 552
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 § 552
 v.