Opinion ID: 1277355
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Family Members' Identifying Information Exemption 6

Text: Exemption 6 exempts from disclosure 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). To determine whether identifying information may be withheld pursuant to Exemption 6 we must: (1) determine whether the identifying information is contained in personnel and medical files and similar files; and (2) balance the public need for the information against the individual's privacy interest in order to assess whether disclosure would constitute a `clearly unwarranted' invasion of personal privacy. Wood, 432 F.3d at 86. The determination of whether Exemption 6 applies requires balancing an individual's right to privacy against the preservation of FOIA's basic purpose of opening agency action to the light of public scrutiny. Rose, 425 U.S. at 372, 96 S.Ct. 1592. Only where a privacy interest is implicated does the public interest for which the information will serve become relevant and require a balancing of the competing interests. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 958 F.2d at 509. As explained above, FOIA requires only a measurable interest in privacy to trigger the application of the disclosure balancing tests. Id. at 510. An invasion of more than a de minimis privacy interest protected by Exemption 6 must be shown to be `clearly unwarranted' in order to prevail over the public interest in disclosure. Id. Under Exemption 6, therefore, the government's burden in establishing the required invasion of privacy is heavier than the burden in establishing invasion of privacy under Exemption 7(C). Ray, 502 U.S. at 172, 112 S.Ct. 541. Exemption 6 does not protect against disclosure every incidental invasion of privacy  only such disclosures as constitute `clearly unwarranted' invasions of personal privacy. Rose, 425 U.S. at 382, 96 S.Ct. 1592. The second set of documents at issue are personal letters sent to two detainees, Detainee b(1) and Detainee b(2), from their family members through the Red Cross. These Red Cross Messages (RCMs) were submitted to DOD by the detainees at their ARB hearings. DOD redacted the names and addresses of the detainees' family members in these letters pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3 and 6. Preliminarily, we note that the parties do not dispute that the letters at issue are considered personnel and medical files and similar files within the meaning of Exemption 6. Although the government does not indicate the specific category into which the family members' letters fall, it appears that similar files would be the closest description. The phrase similar files has a broad meaning and encompasses the government's records on an individual which can be identified as applying to that individual. See U.S. Dep't of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595, 600-02, 102 S.Ct. 1957, 72 L.Ed.2d 358 (1982). Since the redacted records at issue apply to the detainees whose family members seek protection, those records are similar files within the meaning of Exemption 6. Cf. Ray, 502 U.S. at 173, 112 S.Ct. 541 ([R]eports from which identifying information was deleted unquestionably apply to the particular individuals who had been returned and interviewed ... they are `similar files' within the meaning of the exemption.). We now consider whether the family members of Detainee b(1) and Detainee b(2) have more than a de minimis privacy interest in the disclosure of their names and addresses.