Opinion ID: 697751
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Exemption 7(D): Information Disclosing Confidential

Text: Informants 48 The Government argues that the court applied incorrect legal standards in evaluating the FBI's claims of exemption from release of information under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(b)(7)(D). That provision permits the government to withhold 49 records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, [to the extent those records] could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source ... and, in the case of a record or information compiled by criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation ... information furnished by a confidential source. 50 The government bears the burden of establishing the applicability of the exemption. Department of Justice v. Landano, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 2014, 2019, 124 L.Ed.2d 84 (1993). Under this exemption, a source is confidential if it provided information under an express assurance of confidentiality or in circumstances from which such an assurance could be reasonably inferred. Id. at ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2019-2020 (quoting S.Rep. No. 93-1200, at 13 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6267, 6291). The focus, therefore, is not whether the requested document is of the type that the agency usually treats as confidential, but whether the particular source spoke with an understanding that the communication would remain confidential. Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2019 (emphasis in original). 51 The Government argued in its original briefs to this court that the district court should have applied a presumption of confidentiality to sources that provided information in the course of the FBI investigations. The Supreme Court has since foreclosed this argument. In Landano, the Court rejected the view held by the D.C., Second, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits that a presumption of confidentiality attaches from the mere fact of an FBI investigation. See Dow Jones & Co. v. Dep't of Justice, 917 F.2d 571, 576 (D.C.Cir.1990); Donovan v. FBI, 806 F.2d 55, 61 (2d Cir.1986); Kimberlin v. Dep't of Treasury, 774 F.2d 204, 208 (7th Cir.1985); Parton v. Dep't of Justice, 727 F.2d 774, 776 (8th Cir.1984); KTVY-TV v. United States, 919 F.2d 1465, 1470 (10th Cir.1990). Instead, the Court set forth a framework under which the confidentiality determination turns on the circumstances under which the subject provided the requested information. Landano, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2023. 52 Landano did not affect the application of exemption 7(D) to sources and information covered by an express assurance of confidentiality. We have observed that such an express promise of confidentiality is virtually unassailable. Wiener v. FBI, 943 F.2d 972, 986 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 3013, 120 L.Ed.2d 886 (1992). It is also easy to prove: The FBI need only establish the informant was told his name would be held in confidence. Id. 53 The government asserts the district court erred in denying protection to several records over claims of express grants of confidence. It specifically objects to the court's refusal to treat all symbol numbered sources as protected by express grants of confidentiality. The government argued below, and again on appeal, that symbol numbered sources receive assurances from the FBI that their relationship with the FBI will not be revealed to the public, and therefore qualify as a class for exemption 7(D) protection. The district court apparently concluded otherwise. Although the government reargues the point that in fact these sources were granted express assurances of confidence, it has not pointed to anything in the record that indicates persuasively that all of these sources were told [their] name[s] would be held in confidence. Id. We have no basis upon which to disturb the district court's conclusions. Further, our own review of the individual document rulings indicates that the court observed scrupulously the sanctity of the legitimate claims of express grants of confidence. We discern no error in the court's treatment of the express confidence claims. 54 We now turn to the district court's denial of requests to withhold documents allegedly acquired through implied assurances of confidentiality. The district court rejected the government's argument that FBI sources inherently qualify for the implied assurance protection, and conducted a document-specific and source-specific inquiry. The court's inquiry comported with Landano 's command to analyze documents individually. Landano, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2019. The inquiry also anticipated Landano 's command to infer that the informant received an implied assurance of confidentiality only if factors like the nature of the crime being investigated and the source's relationship with the FBI made it reasonable to infer that the informant expected such an assurance. Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2023. We affirm the district court's rulings denying certain documents exempt status under Exemption 7(D). 55