Opinion ID: 720526
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court's Exemption 7(C) and (D) Holdings

Text: 38 Although we are remanding the case to allow the district court to review the withheld documents in camera to verify that they were compiled for law enforcement purposes, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7), we comment briefly on the district court's rulings that the withheld documents fall within the ambit of Exemptions 7(C) and (D).
39 An agency may withhold documents compiled for law enforcement purposes that could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Id. § 552(b)(7)(C). Courts have construed this exemption to cover documents in which the privacy interest at stake outweighs the public's interest in disclosure. United States Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 776, 109 S.Ct. 1468, 1483, 103 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989) (Reporters Committee); Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility v. United States Secret Service, 72 F.3d 897, 904-05 (D.C.Cir.1996) (Computer Professionals). In this case, because the public interest in disclosure is minimal, while the privacy interests of the informants are strong, the district court concluded that the FBI was entitled to withhold documents identifying informants and other individuals involved in the investigation. Mem. op. at 4. 40 Appellants argue on appeal that any documents identifying Chief Judge Tjoflat's role in the investigation should not be protected under Exemption 7(C) because his privacy interest is outweighed by the public's interest in disclosure. Appellants base their claim that the Chief Judge's privacy interest is negligible on the fact that (1) if the alleged obstruction of justice were ever prosecuted, he would be a necessary witness; and (2) he is a public figure. Brief for Appellants at 38-39. Even assuming, arguendo, that a FOIA plaintiff may infer that a specific person is a source and then make special arguments against confidentiality based on that hypothesis, we dismiss appellants' first argument because it is sheer speculation that the Chief Judge would be a necessary witness. As regards their second argument, while it is true that Government officials may have a somewhat diminished privacy interest, see Fund for Constitutional Gov't v. National Archives and Records Serv., 656 F.2d 856, 865 (D.C.Cir. 1981), [they] do not surrender all rights to personal privacy when they accept a public appointment. Bast v. Department of Justice, 665 F.2d 1251, 1255 (D.C.Cir.1981). Cf. Fitzgibbon v. Central Intelligence Agency, 911 F.2d 755, 767 (D.C.Cir.1990) ([p]ersons involved in FBI investigations--even if they are not the subject of the investigation--'have a substantial interest in seeing that their participation remains secret' ) (quoting King, 830 F.2d at 233). 41 Appellants also argue that if the Chief Judge was involved in wrongdoing, the public has a substantial interest in the disclosure of [318 U.S.App.D.C. 237] documents that would shed light on his role in the investigation. We note, however, that the relevant question in determining whether there is a public interest in disclosure is whether the FBI, not Chief Judge Tjoflat, has engaged in wrongdoing. As the Supreme Court stated inReporters Committee, the public interest to be taken into the balance is that in [o]fficial information that sheds light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties. 489 U.S. at 773, 109 S.Ct. at 1482. Disclosure of information that reveals little or nothing about an agency's own conduct does not further the public interest envisaged by FOIA. Id. We have recently observed, however, that 42 [a]lthough Reporters Committee and the precedent of this circuit make clear that FOIA extends only to those records which reveal something about agency action, the mere fact that records pertain to an individual's activities does not necessarily qualify them for exemption. Such records may still be cloaked with the public interest if the information would shed light on agency action. 43 Nation Magazine, Washington Bureau v. United States Customs Service, 71 F.3d 885, 894-95 (D.C.Cir.1995) (emphasis in original). 44 As an initial matter, we note that appellants have not produced a single speck of evidence that the Chief Judge was involved in wrongdoing; and even if they had, there is no indication that such misconduct would shed any light on the FBI's action. When 45 governmental misconduct is alleged as the justification for disclosure, the public interest is insubstantial unless the requester puts forward compelling evidence that the agency denying the FOIA request is engaged in illegal activity and shows that the information sought is necessary in order to confirm or refute that evidence. 46 Computer Professionals, 72 F.3d at 905 (quoting Davis v. Department of Justice, 968 F.2d 1276, 1282 (D.C.Cir.1992)). In the absence of such evidence, we agree with the district court that the FBI may invoke Exemption 7(C) to withhold the names of individuals identified in the withheld documents, provided, of course, that those documents were compiled for a law enforcement purpose.
47 An agency may withhold documents compiled for a law enforcement purpose that were furnished by a confidential source. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(D). In this case, the district court concluded, on the basis of a declaration filed by Special Agent Felix, that all the individuals interviewed knew the subjects of the investigation. Mem. op. at 4. Because [i]t is reasonable to conclude that the persons interviewed would not have been inclined to risk the embarrassment or social antagonism that could have resulted from public disclosure of their statements, the court found that the FBI had demonstrated the existence of an implied assurance of confidentiality and thus had satisfied the requirements of Exemption 7(D). Id. at 4-5. 48 In United States Department of Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165, 113 S.Ct. 2014, 124 L.Ed.2d 84 (1993), the Supreme Court held that the Government is not entitled to a presumption that a source is confidential within the meaning of Exemption 7(D) whenever the source provides information to the FBI in the course of a criminal investigation. Id. at 181, 113 S.Ct. at 2024. The Court rejected such a broad presumption of confidentiality in favor of a particularized approach that looks to factors such as the nature of the crime that was investigated and the source's relation to it in order to determine whether a promise of confidentiality may be inferred. Id. at 180, 113 S.Ct. at 2023-24. 49 The only case-specific factor apparently relied upon by the district court to justify an inference of confidentiality was Special Agent Felix's statement that many of the persons interviewed were acquainted and/or had contact on a business, professional, and/or social level with one or more of the subjects of th[e] investigation. Felix Declaration p 42. The mere fact that a source may have some social or business association with the subject of a federal criminal investigation falls short of the particularity mandated by Landano. 50 [318 U.S.App.D.C. 238] Whether the informants in this case may be presumed to have disclosed information to the FBI under an expectation of confidentiality must surely depend on both the nature of the disclosure and the nature of their relationships with the subjects of the investigation. It is simply not reasonable to assume, for example, that anyone who provides the FBI with exculpatory information about a professional associate will be embarrassed to have that fact disclosed. Therefore, on remand, the FBI must satisfy the district court that their informants cooperated with an expectation of confidentiality. To this end, the FBI may submit additional affidavits to establish that the informants' particular social or professional relationships with the subjects of the investigation, and the nature of the information provided by them, allow for the inference of an assurance of confidentiality. 51 In its appellate brief, the FBI also contends that because the investigation in the instant case was related to the notoriously violent crime of drug trafficking, one can infer that all information was given under an implied promise of confidentiality. Brief for Appellee at 25. We are unpersuaded by this argument. In this case, the Bureau was investigating an alleged attempt to disqualify the Eleventh Circuit from hearing a criminal appeal. Ordinarily, there is little to fear, at least of a violent nature, from a trio of criminal defense lawyers. At oral argument, however, counsel for the FBI assured us that Carlos Lehder's tentacles spread far and wide, and that people would have legitimate fears about crossing even his lawyers. Again, the FBI is free, on remand, to submit affidavits that bolster this contention. 52 Whether or not the Bureau decides to submit additional affidavits in support of its invocation of Exemption 7(D), the district court must, on remand, examine the documents in camera not only to determine whether the FBI was engaged in a bona fide law enforcement investigation, but also whether they support the entitlement of each informant to confidentiality under the statute. If the court decides that the exemptions were properly invoked, it should also determine whether, contrary to its claim, the Bureau has withheld any reasonably segregable non-exempt portions of the documents.