Opinion ID: 3009848
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Public Benefit

Text: The Reporters Committee decision also guides us in identifying the relevant public benefits to be weighed against the asserted privacy interests. The Supreme Court declared that: whether disclosure of a private document under Exemption 7(C) is warranted must turn on the nature of the requested document and its relationship to the basic purpose of the Freedom of Information Act 'to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny' Department of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. [352], 372, 96 S. Ct. [1592], 1604 [(1976)], rather than on the particular purpose for which the document is being requested. Reporters Committee, 489 U.S. at 772, 109 S. Ct. at 1481. Accordingly, [o]fficial information that sheds light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties falls squarely within that statutory purpose. That purpose, however, is not fostered by disclosure of information about private citizens that is accumulated in various government files but that reveals little or nothing about an agency's own conduct. Id. at 773, 109 S. Ct. at 1481-82. Davin asserts a strong public interest in illuminating the government's operations and exposing possible misconduct with regard with to the FBI's investigation of the WAA and Lasser. We agree that the information requested by Davin appears to fall within the statutory purpose of FOIA in informing the citizenry about what their government is up to. Id. at 773, 109 S. Ct. at 1481 (quoting EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 80, 93 S. Ct. 827, 832 (1973) (emphasis in original) (Douglas, J. dissenting)). The 37 district court must determine, however, whether that purpose is fostered by disclosure of the identities of private citizens. We are cognizant of the government's stated justification for withholding: (1) names and identifying data of non-federal law enforcement officers because disclosure of their identities would inhibit the cooperation and exchange of information between law enforcement officials and the FBI, and would suppress a vital source of information that the FBI relies upon in order to pursue investigative interests against alleged criminals, suspects or subjects of investigations, App. at 78; and (2) identities of third parties who furnished information to the FBI because disclosure would seriously impede the FBI's ability to gather future information. App. at 81. We held in McDonnell that the Government's asserted interest in assuring future cooperation of witnesses with FBI investigations is not a valid reason for refusing to disclose information under Exemption 7(C). McDonnell, 4 F.3d at 1256. Accordingly, neither the FBI nor the district court may consider this factor in considering the public benefit of withholding the information.