Case Name: HOLY SPIRIT ASSOCIATION FOR the UNIFICATION OF WORLD CHRISTIANITY, Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1982-07-23
Citations: 221 U.S. App. D.C. 221
Docket Number: No. 81-2349
Parties: HOLY SPIRIT ASSOCIATION FOR the UNIFICATION OF WORLD CHRISTIANITY, Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION et al.
Judges: Before WRIGHT, MacKINNON and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Volume: 221
Pages: 221–226

Head Matter:
683 F.2d 562
HOLY SPIRIT ASSOCIATION FOR the UNIFICATION OF WORLD CHRISTIANITY, Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION et al.
No. 81-2349.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued May 18, 1982.
Decided July 23, 1982.
As Amended Aug. 3, 1982.
Dorothy Sellers, Washington, D. C., with whom Douglas Mishkin, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Susan Sleater, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., with whom Stanley S. Harris, U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., and Leonard Schaitman, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellees. Kenneth M. Raisler and John Oliver Birch, Asst. U. S. Attys., Washington, D. C., entered appearances for appellees.
Before WRIGHT, MacKINNON and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Opinion for the court PER CURIAM.
Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge MacKINNON.
PER CURIAM:
Exemption 7(C) of the Freedom of Information Act permits an agency to withhold "investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such records would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) (1976). In this case the Federal Bureau of Investigation invoked Exemption 7(C) to support its deletion of names, addresses, and other identifying information from documents it released to the Holy Spirit Association (Unification Church) pursuant to the church's FOIA request. The church filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to compel disclosure of the remaining material. In its affidavit the FBI stated that it had conducted an investigation to determine whether the Unification Church had violated two federal statutes: the kidnaping provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1201 (1976), and the Foreign Agents Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq. (1976). Joint Appendix (JA) 23-24. The FBI affidavit also contended that release of the identifying information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. JA 33-36.
The District Court found that the government's Exemption 7(C) claim was justified and granted summary judgment in the government's favor. JA 432-440. Subsequently the FBI located and processed an additional set of documents, from which it deleted identifying material in reliance on Exemption 7(C). After reviewing affidavits from the FBI, the District Court granted summary judgment for the government with respect to these deletions. JA 602-608, 616.
We affirm the rulings of the District Court, generally for the reasons stated in its opinions. The court found that the documents in question were "investigatory records" within the meaning of Exemption 7; this finding of fact was not clearly erroneous. We also endorse the District Court's discussion of the information that the FBI should generally include in affidavits claiming the protection of Exemption 7:
[T]he agent's affidavit does not spell out specifically when the investigations of the Unification Church began, how long they lasted and whether any persons were later indicted. This information may be necessary in some cases and should be routinely offered to the Court.
JA 437. In this case, as the District Court explained, the imprecision of the FBI's affidavit, "[i]f indeed it is a procedural defect, is not fatal Id. However, inclusion of more detailed information about the relevant investigations would facilitate an accurate determination of whether the documents in question are "investigatory records."
The judgments óf the District Court are
Affirmed.