Opinion ID: 2959659
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Redactions in the District’s Production

Text: of the Remaining Responsive Files On December 14, 2012, the parties appeared before the court once again. By this time, the District had produced redacted copies of all the remaining 5 One particular contested redaction discussed at the hearing concerned the possible effect of a pregnant officer’s psychiatric treatment and medication on her job performance. The District argued, and the court agreed, that the disclosure of this information would make it easier for the FOP to identify the officer and thus result in a serious invasion of her privacy. 7 disciplinary files (in what the parties have referred to as the District’s second production, to distinguish it from the initial production of five sample files). But disagreements remained regarding the District’s redactions, which the parties addressed at the hearing and in subsequent briefing. First, claiming that the sample files in the District’s initial production had been redacted more heavily than the 26 files in the second production, the FOP argued that this inconsistency demonstrated that the sample files had been overredacted and needed to be re-produced with fewer deletions. The District disagreed, contending that the sample files had been redacted in accordance with FOIA’s requirements even if they did contain more redactions than the other files. Second, despite its prior agreement that the District should redact physical descriptions and other identifiers of officers involved in the disciplinary proceedings, the FOP objected to the redaction of references to gender, race, and event dates in some of the documents in the two productions. It argued that this information could not reveal the identities of any officers, given that the police force had nearly 4,000 members. In response, the District explained that the MPD 8 had removed references to gender, race, and event dates in the disciplinary files only where it believed the information actually would enable the FOP and its members to identify the officers in question. Identification would be easier than the FOP suggested, the District argued, because the FOIA requests targeted disciplinary proceedings involving only higher ranking officers, who constituted a subset of the police force.