Opinion ID: 2211455
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Clearly Unwarranted Invasion of Privacy Element

Text: Although we have already concluded that the information sought was not characteristically of a personal nature and, therefore, that the privacy exemption does not apply, we will now briefly address the second step of the inquiry: whether disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. We first note that the trial court committed an error of law when it proceeded directly to this inquiry without first determining whether the request sought information that was of a personal nature. The trial court additionally erred when it concluded that, on these particular facts, disclosure of the requested information would have constituted a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. By providing that the invasion of privacy must be clearly unwarranted, the Legislature has unmistakably indicated that the intrusion must be more than slight, but a very significant one indeed. In Mager, we determined that disclosure of the names and addresses of registered gun owners would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the gun owners' privacy. Taking guidance from federal decisions concerning the federal FOIA, we noted that `a court must balance the public interest in disclosure against the interest [the Legislature] intended the exemption to protect.' Id. at 145, 595 N.W.2d 142, quoting United States Dep't of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 510 U.S. 487, 495, 114 S.Ct. 1006, 127 L.Ed.2d 325 (1994). We further held that the relevant public interest to be weighed in this balance `is the extent to which disclosure would serve the core purpose of the FOIA, which is contributing significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government. ' Mager, supra at 145, 595 N.W.2d 142, quoting United States Dep't of Defense, supra at 495, 114 S.Ct. 1006 (emphasis in original). On the basis of the foregoing, we held that fulfilling a request for personal information concerning private citizens, where the request was entirely unrelated to any inquiry regarding the inner working of government, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. Mager, supra at 146, 595 N.W.2d 142. In short, when the information sought is embarrassing or intimate, and the relationship between the personal information to be disclosed and the operations of our government is slight, the weaker is the case that disclosure should be made under the FOIA. In contrast to the highly personal information at issue in Mager, we conclude that disclosure of the information concerning the final candidates for fire chief in the instant case would serve the policy underlying the FOIA because disclosure would facilitate the public's access to information regarding the affairs of their city government. It can hardly be challenged that the citizens of Bay City had a valid interest in knowing the identities of the final candidates considered in contention for this high-level public position. Keeping in mind that defendants bear the burden of proof that an exemption applies, and balancing the public interest against the relatively circumscribed privacy interest protected by the FOIA exemption, we cannot conclude that the disclosure sought might result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy. [9]