Opinion ID: 3219057
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Two Emails

Text: Finally, the IRS made redactions to two emails that it produced, withholding the names and contact information of certain IRS personnel who were consulted in connection with Solers’ audit. The IRS maintained that the redactions were justified under Exemptions 6 and 7(C), and the district court agreed. Exemption 6 specifies that FOIA’s disclosure requirement does not apply to “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). The Supreme Court has instructed that the phrase “similar files,” as used in Exemption 6, should be given “a broad, rather than a narrow, meaning,” explaining that “[w]hen disclosure of information which applies to a particular individual is sought 18 from Government records, courts must determine whether release of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of that person’s privacy.” U.S. Dep’t of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595, 600, 602 (1982). And to determine whether an invasion of privacy would be “clearly unwarranted,” courts employ a balancing test that weighs the individual’s privacy interests against the public interest in disclosure. The public interest is served to “the extent to which disclosure of the information sought would ‘she[d] light on an agency’s performance of its statutory duties’ or otherwise let citizens know ‘what their government is up to.’” U.S. Dep’t of Defense v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 510 U.S. 487, 497 (1994) (alteration in original) (quoting Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989)). A similar analysis applies with respect to the application of Exemption 7(C), which allows agencies to withhold “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information . . . could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C). In this case, Solers does not dispute that the redacted information was contained in “personnel and medical files and similar files,” within the meaning of Exemption 6, or that the 19 redacted information was “compiled for law enforcement purposes,” within the meaning of Exemption 7(C). Rather, it contends that the district court did not adequately consider whether the release of the names and contact information of these IRS employees would constitute “even a general invasion of privacy” and that it failed to “weigh Solers’ right to review its tax documents against the asserted privacy interests.” We conclude, however, that the district court struck the right balance in permitting these email redactions. On the one side of the scale, IRS employees, as well as other government employees, “have a substantial interest in the nondisclosure of their identities and their connection with particular investigations because of the potential for future harassment, annoyance, or embarrassment.” Neely v. FBI, 208 F.3d 461, 46465 (4th Cir. 2000); see also Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States, 84 F. App’x 335, 339 (4th Cir. 2004) (unpublished) (concluding that “the privacy interest protected by Exemption 6 encompasse[s] . . . the names of federal employees,” including “lower-level I.R.S. employees”). But, on the other side of the scale in this case, the record contains no indication that disclosing the names and contact information of these IRS employees would serve the public interest. See Neely, 208 F.3d at 464 (recognizing that the public interest in the names of government employees alone “would appear to be negligible” 20 absent a “compelling allegation of agency corruption or illegality”). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in holding that the IRS employees’ interest in maintaining the privacy of their names and contact information outweighed the public interest in the disclosure of this information. The judgment of the district court is accordingly AFFIRMED. 21