Opinion ID: 71499
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Exemptions 6 and 7(C)Invasion of Personal Privacy

Text: The Sheldon declaration also asserts that certain Examination Workpapers, including information from public and private sources, and/or portions thereof that contain information pertaining to persons other than plaintiff are exempt from disclosure under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) because the release of the information would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of the individuals identified in these records and would provide little, if any, insight into the operations of the IRS. Exemption 6 provides that an agency need not disclose personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. § 552(b)(6). Exemption 7(C) provides that an agency need not disclose records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information ... (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. § 552(b)(7)(C). The Supreme Court has clarified that whether disclosure of a private document under Exemption 7(C) is warranted must turn on the nature of the requested document and its relationship to the basic purpose of the Freedom of Information Act to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny, rather than on the particular purpose for which the document is being requested. U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 772, 109 S.Ct. 1468, 103 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Instead, the court must balance the public interest in disclosure against the interest Congress intended the Exemption to protect. Id. at 776, 109 S.Ct. 1468. This court has performed the same analysis in cases arising under Exemption 6. Avondale Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 90 F.3d 955, 960 (5th Cir. 1996). Here again, we are unable to determine the nature of the withheld documents from the general category certain Examination Workpapers, including information from public and private sources, and/or portions thereof that contain information pertaining to persons other than plaintiff. Absent a more detailed description of the types of documents falling within this category, we are unable to meaningfully review the applicability of this exemption. In so holding, we do not suggest that a listing by categorical type of withheld documents is inappropriate. Indeed, this court has recognized that a categorical approach may be taken to determine whether records are exempt from disclosure in cases that implicate law enforcement records or concerns over an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Cooper Cameron Corp., 280 F.3d at 544 & n. 11; Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. at 777-78, 109 S.Ct. 1468. But unlike a case where an agency asserts that rap sheets in general... are `law enforcement records' that are exempt from disclosure, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. at 779, 109 S.Ct. 1468, the Sheldon affidavit does not identify particular types of documents that are categorically exempt. In other words, using the law enforcement example from the Reporters Committee case, it is one thing to say that a particular type of documente.g., a rap sheetis categorically a law enforcement document and quite another to say we withheld a group of law enforcement documents. In this case, the ambiguity in the type of documents withheld and the information contained therein makes it impossible to determine whether the individuals named in the documents have a viable privacy interest. See Avondale Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d at 960. In short, it is impossible to tell the type of information contained within the broad category of certain Examination Workpapers, including information from public and private sources. These broad, conclusory descriptions of the documents afford Batton no opportunity to challenge the withholding and offer this court no opportunity to meaningfully review the applicability of the claimed exemptions. Vaughn, 484 F.2d at 824-25. We do not have factual findings to aid our review of the applicability of Exemptions 6 and 7(C), and we cannot determine on this record whether information could be redacted to prevent an invasion of personal privacy. The FOIA authorizes several means of preventing disclosure of third party identifying information. See § 552(a)(2) (providing that, [t]o the extent required to prevent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, an agency may delete identifying details when it makes available or publishes an opinion, statement of policy, interpretation, or staff manual or instruction); § 522(b) (Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under [subsection (b)].). A Vaughn index, perhaps coupled with an in camera review of a limited subset of documents, would aid this analysis.