Opinion ID: 619809
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Claim III: psychological records and Exemption High 2

Text: We now turn to the final FOIA claim in this appeal, the BOP's reliance on Exemption High 2 in redacting one paragraph of Mr. Jordan's psychological records that allegedly included the subjective perception of another staff member, and advised all staff regarding appropriate actions to take with regard to [Mr. Jordan]. R. at 221. As noted above, by statute, Exemption 2 applies to matters that are ... related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2). Exemption High 2 was a judicially crafted subdivision of Exemption 2 that protected from disclosure material that is predominant[ly] internal[] in nature if disclosure significantly risks circumvention of agency regulations or statutes. Crooker, 670 F.2d at 1074. Exemption High 2 recently met its demise in Milner, which was issued after the district court's judgment in this case. In Milner, the Court explained that Exemption 2 is limited to conditions of employment in federal agenciessuch matters as hiring and firing, work rules and discipline, compensation and benefits. 131 S.Ct. at 1265. The Court made clear that Low 2 is all of 2 (and ... High 2 is not 2 at all...). Id. Defendants concede, as they must, that in light of Milner, High 2 cannot justify withholding the redacted paragraph of Mr. Jordan's psychological record because the redaction does not concern conditions of employment in a federal agency. They urge us, however, to consider Exemptions 7E and 7F, even though they did not rely on those exemptions in the district court. They argue that under our precedent, see, e.g., Bixler v. Foster, 596 F.3d 751, 760 (10th Cir.2010), we may affirm on any basis supported by the record. In the alternative, defendants ask us to remand for further development of the record in light of Milner. Mr. Jordan, relying primarily on Maydak v. United States Department of Justice, 218 F.3d 760, 764-65 (D.C.Cir.2000) and Ryan v. Department of Justice, 617 F.2d 781, 792 (D.C.Cir.1980), counters that defendants have waived any exemptions they did not advance in the district court. He argues that it would be especially unfair to consider Exemptions 7E and 7F in view of the fact that he never had the opportunity to argue or present evidence against these exemptions. He also contends remand would be improper because Milner did not effect a change in the law; it merely clarified which of two competing circuit-court interpretations of Exemption 2 was proper. While Mr. Jordan's position is not without some force, two factors cause us to side with defendants on this point as to Exemption 7E only. First, in Milner, the Court [could not] think of any document eligible for withholding under Exemption 7(E) that the High 2 reading does not capture: The circumvention standard is the same, and the law enforcement records listed in Exemption 7(E) are `predominantly internal.' Milner, 131 S.Ct. at 1268. Thus, Exemption 7E is essentially the same as former High 2, with the added requirement that material be compiled for law enforcement purposes. As defendants argued for both High 2 and the per se rule in the district court, they effectively presented all elements of Exemption 7E. Mr. Jordan had ample opportunity in the district court and again on appeal to address the circumvention aspect of High 2 and the law enforcement purposes requirement of Exemption 7. Therefore, we do not consider that defendants waived or forfeited Exemption 7E. The second factor that counsels in favor of considering defendants' Exemption 7E argument is our reluctance to command do-overs in the district court. Richison, 634 F.3d at 1130. This reluctance is why we treat arguments for affirming the district court differently than arguments for reversing it. We have long said that we may affirm on any basis supported by the record, even if it requires ruling on arguments not reached by the district court or even presented to us on appeal. Id. See also SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 88, 63 S.Ct. 454, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943) ([I]n reviewing the decision of a lower court, it must be affirmed if the result is correct although the lower court relied upon a wrong ground or gave a wrong reason. (internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, we may affirm on an alternate legal ground instead of sending the case back to the district court to do the work provided that the alternate ground [is] within [our] power ... to formulate, id. and the opposing party has had a fair chance to address it, Reedy v. Werholz, 660 F.3d 1270, 1276 (10th Cir.2011). Here, based on our view that the defendants presented, and Mr. Jordan disputed, all of the elements of Exemption 7E in the district court, it is within our power to consider Exemption 7E on appeal in lieu of the now-defunct High 2 exemption. We will not consider Exemption 7F, as the same considerations are not present with regard to it. Turning then to Exemption 7E, we conclude that the redacted portion of Mr. Jordan's psychological records falls within its compass. Under our per se rule, the redaction meets Exemption 7's threshold requirement of being compiled for law enforcement purposes. Furthermore, defendants have satisfied the particular requirement of Exemption 7E by showing that releasing the redaction would disclose techniques for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law. § 552(b)(7)(E). Clearly, given that the redacted portion advised all staff regarding appropriate actions to take with regard to [Mr. Jordan], R. at 221, a dangerous prisoner with a history of threatening staff with bodily harm, see Jordan v. Wiley, 411 Fed.Appx. 201, 204 (10th Cir.2011), its release would disclose guidelines for a potential law enforcement investigation by giving information BOP staff would be likely to use in investigating Mr. Jordan's conduct while incarcerated. Further, knowing BOP strategy could make it easier for Mr. Jordan to subvert it, which could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law given his history of violence and violent threats.