Opinion ID: 2298184
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Vaughn Index or In Camera Review

Text: The petitioner also argues that in determining whether the requested records were exempt from disclosure under Murray, the trial court should have either conducted an in camera review of the records or required the Fire Marshal to produce a Vaughn index, see Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826-28 & nn. 20-21 (D.C.Cir.1973). While an in camera review or the preparation of a Vaughn index may be sufficient to justify an agency's refusal to disclose, such measures are also not necessarily required. Murray, 154 N.H. at 583, 913 A.2d 737. In most cases involving prong (A) of the Murray exemption, generic determinations of likely interference often will suffice. Id.; accord Curran v. Department of Justice, 813 F.2d 473, 475 (1st Cir.1987) (explaining that the use of a Vaughn index is simply not a practicable approach in cases invoking exemption 7(A) of the FOIA). Such generic determinations should be justified for each category of document, rather than file-by-file, and [t]he categorization should be clear enough to permit a court to ascertain how each category of documents, if disclosed, could interfere with the investigation. Murray, 154 N.H. at 583, 913 A.2d 737. Here, the petitioner argues that [a]lthough Murray permits ... categorical identification of the records sought, the Fire Marshal's categorical identification violates Murray because it is too general. However, Murray requires only that the categories be distinct enough to allow meaningful judicial review. Id. It does not require that the categories of documents be so distinct as to reveal the nature and scope of the investigation. Id. Investigator Clark's affidavit breaks the records down into twelve categories, provides an explanation of each category, and states how disclosure of the records within that category would interfere with enforcement proceedings and whether the category is segregable. Some of the categories include photographs, maps and diagrams, and witness interviews/statements. The petitioner argues that the categorization within the affidavit is too broad and that, based upon Murray, categories such as photographs, maps and diagrams, and witness interviews/statements are too general. See id. at 584, 913 A.2d 737. The petitioner is correct that in Murray, we rejected the broad terms `photographs,' `correspondence (letters and e-mails),' `maps and diagrams' and `tax records.' Id. However, unlike that which was presented in this case, the agency seeking to avoid disclosure in Murray presented the court with only a one-page document delineating twenty categories of information without any annotations or explanations. Id. (emphasis added). Moreover, in Murray we specifically stated that additional explanation might have allowed the respondents to meet their burden ... [but they] offered no affidavits, testimony, or other evidence which ... defined these categories more precisely [or] ... explained how disclosure of the information within these categories could interfere with any investigation or enforcement. Id. Here, the Fire Marshal did exactly what was required under Murray he provided an affidavit that defined the categories with some specificity and explained how disclosure within each category could interfere with the investigation or prosecution. Where the agency has sustained its burden of proof by affidavit or testimony, the trial court need not undertake an in camera inspection or order a Vaughn index. See Lewis, 823 F.2d at 378.