Source: https://pl.scribd.com/document/401708616/Buzzfeed-v-Doj-Order
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 15:55:24+00:00

Document:
in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.
the U.S. Attorney, the “Officials”) employed in a United States Attorney’s Office (the “Office”).
the names of non-supervisory law enforcement agents involved in the OIG investigation.
support, (Docs. 24–25), and on June 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed its reply, (Doc. 26).
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fay v. Oxford Health Plan, 287 F.3d 96, 103 (2d Cir.
or unnecessary will not be counted.” Id.
denied. Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Simon, 310 F.3d 280, 286 (2d Cir. 2002).
of broad disclosure, these exemptions have been consistently given a narrow compass.”).
Supreme Court to encompass any “information which applies to a particular individual . . .
Admin., 758 F.3d 168, 174 (2d Cir. 2014).
expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C).
both exemptions are asserted, a court need only evaluate withholding under Exemption 7(C).
(2004), reaff’d on remand, 380 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam).
the [privacy] interest Congress intended the [exemptions] to protect.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice v.
decisions.” Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 762.
the light of public scrutiny.” Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 772 (quoting Rose, 425 U.S. at 372).
“the citizens’ right to be informed about what their government is up to.” U.S. Dep’t of State v.
likely to advance that interest. Otherwise, the invasion of privacy is unwarranted.
belief by a reasonable person that the alleged Government impropriety might have occurred.” Id.
would serve a public interest cognizable under FOIA.” Associated Press, 549 F.3d at 66.
embarrassment or retaliation. See Ray, 502 U.S. at 176–77.
nondisclosure of the Officials’ identities.
I next consider the public interest in disclosure. It is axiomatic that “[t]he public . . .
Perlman, 312 F.3d at 107 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Grand Cent. P’ship, Inc.
ensures that the public can hold those individuals accountable for their actions as public servants.
significant public interest in revealing the Officials’ identifying information.
part on other grounds, 898 F.3d 51 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
high-ranking official under the case law in this District.
https://www.justice.gov/jm/justice-manual (last visited Mar. 1, 2019).
responsibilities. See id.; see also Bartko v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 898 F.3d 51, 69 (D.C. Cir.
a “higher-level official”). Accordingly, the first factor weighs in favor of disclosure.
Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Zoe Tillman filed in support of Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
and [REDACTED] at any cost,” (id.).
and Supervisory AUSA led to the filing of complaints and could have led to lawsuits. The U.S.
disciplinary actions, and led some to avoid the U.S. Attorney and Supervisory AUSA at all costs.
suggestion in the Report that the Supervisory AUSA engaged in any serious wrongdoing.
constitutes “a substantial amount of evidence” warranting disclosure. Perlman, 312 F.3d at 107.
the amount of evidence and the degree of wrongdoing support disclosure.
weighs in favor of disclosure).
Government’s argument is without merit.
this factor favors disclosure in the context of reports of investigation like the one at issue here.
factor weighs in favor of disclosure.
is most certainly related to that superior’s job function,” see, e.g., Eberg, 193 F. Supp. 3d at 118.
This factor thus weighs in favor of disclosure.
The complaint that prompted the OIG’s investigation also alleged misconduct by the U.S.
investigated these additional allegations, it determined that the allegations were without merit.
innuendo, possibly resulting in serious damage to their reputations”); see also Dunkelberger v.
the information contained in them is favorable or unfavorable”).
suspicion.” 12 Favish, 541 U.S. at 172, 173.
Plaintiff with a copy of the Report that contains all identifying information pertaining to the U.S.
Attorney and Supervisory AUSA in unredacted form on or before April 12, 2019.
18 and close the case.
Jarque v. Smith Bell Co. Ltd.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 552
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.