Case Name: Kevin HARDISON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Jim Nicholson, as Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-13
Citations: 159 F. App'x 93
Docket Number: No. 04-16741; D.C. Docket No. 02-22706 CV-DLG
Parties: Kevin HARDISON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Jim Nicholson, as Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DUBINA and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges, and STROM, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 159
Pages: 93–94

Head Matter:
Kevin HARDISON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Jim Nicholson, as Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-16741.
D.C. Docket No. 02-22706 CV-DLG.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Dec. 13, 2005.
Gordon Robert Leech, Wellington, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Leonard Sehaitman, Wendy M. Keats, Washington, DC, for Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Before DUBINA and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges, and STROM, District Judge.
Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In this appeal, the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment requiring the Secretary to disclose certain documents, or portions thereof, to appellee Kevin Hardison pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a). For the reasons that follow, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment.
We review a district court's grant of summary judgment in a FOIA case de novo. Office of the Capital Collateral Counsel, N. Region of Fla. v. Dep't of Justice, 331 F.3d 799, 802 (11th Cir.2003).
The FOIA exemption at issue in this appeal, Exemption 6, excludes from FOIA requests "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6).
After reviewing the record, reading the parties' briefs and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court erred in finding that the following personal information was not protected under Exemption 6:
(1) the dates of birth, dates of marriages, and spouses' names;
(2) the residents' performance evaluations;
(3) the residents' identities, which are included in the activity log and log summaries; and
(4) the residents' professional background and biographical information unrelated to documenting an individual's credentials for federal employment.
Accordingly, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Hardison and remand this case with directions that judgment be entered in favor of the Secretary.
REVERSED and REMANDED.