Opinion ID: 619809
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claim II: the Supermax roster and Exemption 7F

Text: The BOP invoked Exemption 7F in withholding the Supermax staff roster. As noted, the magistrate judge concluded that the BOP had to release the roster but with staff members' names redacted on the ground that releasing staff names could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(F), by exposing them to threats, manipulation, and harm. See Jordan II, 2010 WL 3023795, at , . On appeal, Mr. Jordan first argues that a provision of BOP Program Statement 1351.05 (2002), which establishes procedures for the release of records under the FOIA and the Privacy Act, forecloses reliance on Exemption 7F with respect to the roster. That provision states: A list of Bureau employees may be generally releasable. R. at 435 (Program Statement 1351.05, Pt. One, § 9.c.). Mr. Jordan argues that the BOP is compelled to abide by its Program Statement. The difficulty with Mr. Jordan's argument is its disregard of another provision in the Program Statement permitting BOP staff to assert any applicable exemption to disclosure which is provided under the FOIA. Id. at 429 (Program Statement 1351.05, Pt. One, § 7.c.). Thus, the Program Statement permits, rather than forecloses, the assertion of Exemption 7F. Mr. Jordan also notes that in Maydak v. United States Department of Justice, 362 F.Supp.2d 316 (D.D.C.2005), the district court found exemption [7F] inapplicable to shield BOP staff names. Aplt. Br. at 22. Aside from being nonbinding on this court, Maydak is clearly distinguishable. The Maydak court ordered the release of BOP staff names for two reasons, neither of which is applicable here. First, the BOP failed to establish Exemption 7's threshold requirement that the names were contained in a record compiled for law enforcement purposes. Maydak, 362 F.Supp.2d at 323. Here we have concluded to the contrary in our adoption of the per se rule. Second, the BOP admitted to having a policy of releasing staff names, titles, and salaries to the general public but not to prisoners, and the Maydak court concluded that an agency cannot base its disclosure decisions on the identity of the requester or the purpose of the request. Id. Here, there is no indication that the BOP releases the names of Supermax staff to the general public but not to inmates. Accordingly, Maydak is not persuasive. [6] Hence, we conclude that the BOP met its burden under Exemption 7F.