Opinion ID: 3009848
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Balancing Private and Public Interests

Text: Davin and the government disagree over how to perform the balancing between private and public interests. Davin refers us to our decision in Lame I, where we emphasized that [t]here can be no question that the 7(C) balancing test must be conducted with regard to each document, because the privacy interest and the interest of the public in disclosure may vary from document 38 to document. Indeed, these interests may vary from portion to portion of an individual document. Lame I, 654 F.2d at 923 (footnote omitted). In that case, we concluded that the FBI's refusal to disclose most of the witness interview transcripts could not be justified under Exemption 7(C), without explaining why the interviews would result in embarrassment or harassment either to the individuals interviewed or to third parties. Id. at 928. The government, in contrast, notes that the Supreme Court in Reporters Committee permitted agencies to exempt certain records categorically, as opposed to on a document-by-document basis. In Reporters Committee, the Court stated that categorical decisions may be appropriate and individual circumstances disregarded when a case fits into a genus in which the balance characteristically tips in one direction, 489 U.S. at 776, 109 S. Ct. at 1483, and concluded that rap sheet information is categorically exempt under § 522(b)(7)(C) because the release of such information always constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Id. at 780, 109 S. Ct. at 1485. While we believe that in the usual circumstance, an individual's privacy interest in not having his or her identity revealed in the context of a criminal or national security investigation overrides the public benefit, we will refrain from extending Reporters Committee to require a per se rule. We similarly did not apply the categorical balancing approach in Landano, when we determined that FBI informants and agents had a privacy interest in not having their names disclosed in 39 connection with a criminal investigation, which outweighed the asserted public interest (not recognized by FOIA) in discovering wrongdoing by a state agency. Landano, 956 F.2d at 430-31. Accordingly, while we do not comment on the proper result of the balancing in this matter, we find it important to note that the government must conduct a document by document fact-specific balancing. Agent Moran dispatched all of the 7(C) exemptions claimed in the 9,270 pages withheld by stating that in each instance where information was withheld: it was determined that individual privacy interests were not outweighed by any public interest. When the documents at issue were reviewed . . . the passage of time and any effect on the third party privacy interests were considered. It was determined that the privacy interests are stronger now than they were when the records were created. To reveal names in the context of these records could reasonably be expected, due to the type of the investigation to put the lives of individuals in danger, cause embarrassment and humiliation, and would therefore, be an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The disclosure of this information would not contribute significantly to the public's understanding of the operations or activities of the Government. App. at 75. This explanation stands in stark contrast to McDonnell, where [t]he Government set forth in an affidavit specific reasons why these persons have a privacy interest in nondisclosure of their identities. McDonnell, 4 F.3d at 1255. Agent Moran's affidavit and testimony, and consequently, the district court's findings, did not link the (b)(7)(C) exemption to any of the individual documents. On remand, the government 40 must provide the district court with a more detailed balancing effort.