Opinion ID: 2682233
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Segregability of the Records

Text: We also reject Cook's alternative argument that NARA should be compelled to redact the specific portions of the records that fall under Exemption 6. In light of the stipulations entered into by NARA and Cook, and Cook's failure in opposing summary judgment to argue segregability, that issue is not properly before us. The parties agreed -22- COOK V. NAT'L ARCHIVES & RECORDS ADMIN. to litigate only exemptions that apply on a categorical basis to all documents at issue in this action, and to the entirety of each such document. J.A. at 51 ¶ 1. Thus, the only issue before the district court was whether Exemption 6 applied to all the records Cook sought. NARA expressly reserved the right to litigate exemptions that apply to some of the records on a non-categorical basis, if its motion did not result in a final judgment for NARA dismissing the complaint in its entirety. Id. at 51 ¶ 2. NARA's motion did result in the dismissal of the entire complaint, however, and the district court did not address the issue of segregability as Cook did not raise the issue. In light of these circumstances, there is no reason for us to reach the question now. In any event, segregation would produce little of value here. FOIA expressly authorizes the redaction of records to prevent an invasion of privacy, given that the policy of informing the public about the operation of its Government can be adequately served in some cases without unnecessarily compromising individual interests in privacy. Ray, 502 U.S. at 174. [A] court may [however] decline to order an agency to commit significant time and resources to the separation of disjointed words, phrases, or even sentences which taken separately or together have minimal or no information -23- COOK V. NAT'L ARCHIVES & RECORDS ADMIN. content. Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 261 n.55 (D.C. Cir. 1977). If we were to order NARA to redact the offending information -- descriptions of which officials (or their representatives) sought records, what records they sought, and any NARA response that might reveal such information -- very little would be left of the records of the special access requests. Compelling NARA to undertake the review and redaction of almost one thousand records to produce little of value would be a waste of time and resources. We decline to compel NARA to engage in this exercise.