Opinion ID: 491446
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exemption (b)(7)(C): Unwarranted Invasions of Personal Privacy

Text: 48 Exemption (b)(7)(C) permits an agency to withhold investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such records would ... constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(b)(7)(C). Faced with a claim that this exemption applies to withheld material, the district court must balanc[e] the privacy interest at stake against the public interest in disclosure. Lesar v. Department of Justice, 636 F.2d 472, 486 (D.C.Cir.1980); accord Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 91 (D.C.Cir.1984); Department of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 370-73, 96 S.Ct. 1592, 1603-04, 48 L.Ed.2d 11 (1976). The (7)(C) exemption is notable in this regard. As to other exemptions, Congress has struck the balance and the duty of the court is limited to finding whether the material is within the defined category. Lesar, 636 F.2d at 486 n. 80. Exemption (7)(C)'s balance is not similarly tilted emphatically in favor of disclosure. Bast v. Department of Justice, 665 F.2d 1251, 1254 (D.C.Cir.1981). 49 The information withheld by defendants under this heading consisted primarily of the names and other identifying information pertaining to individuals [who] were the subjects of a Civil Rights Division investigation, potential defendants in civil rights prosecutions, or witnesses who voluntarily assisted the FBI and the Civil Rights Division by providing information pertinent to the investigation. 43 In addition, the DOJ withheld identification of the translator at the grand jury proceedings, as well as several FBI agents participating in the Cerro Maravilla investigations. 44 50 We find no error in the district court's decision to uphold these exemption claims in their entirety. The privacy interests at stake here are indeed substantial. There is little question that disclosing the identity of targets of law-enforcement investigations can subject those identified to embarrassment and potentially more serious reputational harm. See Fund for Constitutional Government, 656 F.2d at 863-65 (revelation that an individual was investigation subject represents a significant intrusion on privacy); Baez v. Department of Justice, 647 F.2d 1328, 1338 (D.C.Cir.1980) (quoting with approval from an FBI agent's affidavit that [t]here can be no clearer example of an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy than to release to the public that another individual was the subject of an FBI investigation). Other persons involved in the investigation--witnesses, informants, and the investigating agents--also have a substantial interest in seeing that their participation remains secret. See Lesar, 636 F.2d at 488 (Those cooperating with law enforcement should not now pay the price of full disclosure of personal detail.); id. at 487-88 (recognizing FBI agents' claims to privacy in matters related to official duties); Bast, 665 F.2d at 1254 ((7)(C) exemption recognizes the stigma potentially associated with law enforcement investigations and affords broad[ ] privacy rights to suspects, witnesses, and investigators). And while the Senate of Puerto Rico professes disbelief that the grand jury translator would be personally embarrassed by the mere disclosure of his identity, 45 we think it clear that any individual with personal knowledge of the testimony heard by the grand jury could suffer harassment were that fact disclosed. 51 On the other side of the scale, the Senate points to the paramount public interest ... in uncovering all the true facts, and the identities of all the relevant actors, concerning Cerro Maravilla. 46 We do not question the importance of the Senate's investigation; the fact remains, however, that the Senate has not adequately supported its public interest claim with respect to the specific information being withheld. The district court, evaluating the DOJ's (7)(C) claims, must weigh[ ] the specific privacy invasion against the value of disclosing a given document. Bast, 665 F.2d at 1254, citing Common Cause v. National Archives and Records Service, 628 F.2d 179, 184 (D.C.Cir.1980). In face of the legitimate and substantial privacy interests implicated here, the Senate could point to little more than its general interest in getting to the bottom of the Cerro Maravilla affair. We will not disturb the district court's holding that this interest is not in itself sufficient 47 to outweigh the privacy concerns previously identified.