Opinion ID: 4231997
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Health and Death-Related Records

Text: It is uncontested that Dr. Volkman's living former patients have significant privacy interests in their medical records, which we have described as highly personal and intimate in nature. Kurzon v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 649 F.2d 65, 68 (1st Cir. 1981). And it is undisputed that the prior disclosure of these records as trial exhibits does not diminish the privacy interests of the former patients in the records.4 As 3 The dissent appears to ignore these already-disclosed medical records when discussing the incremental informational value of the withheld records. 4 Trial exhibits are generally either returned to the parties or destroyed after trial. In the Southern District of Ohio, where Dr. Volkman was tried, the applicable local rule states that [u]nless otherwise ordered by the Court, counsel shall - 13 - the district court explicitly acknowledged, and Eil concedes, [p]rior revelations of exempt information do not destroy an individual's privacy interest, and [t]he privacy interests the government seeks to uphold remain as strong now as they were before. Eil, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 487-88 (quoting Moffat, 716 F.3d at 251); see also Stalcup, 768 F.3d at 73 (noting that individuals have an inherent privacy interest irrespective of any government intervention); Carpenter, 470 F.3d at 440 (That information has been released to the public domain, especially where the release is limited, has little bearing on the privacy interest. (citing Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 763-64)). However, both Eil and the district court failed to acknowledge the distinct privacy interests of the relatives of Dr. Volkman's deceased patients in the deceased patients' deathrelated records.5 In Favish, the Supreme Court held that family members have significant privacy interests in their close relatives' death-scene images and the graphic details retrieve exhibits . . . filed in an action or offered into evidence within six months after final termination of the action. The Clerk shall dispose of all such material at the expiration of the retrieval period. S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 79.2; see also S.D. Ohio Crim. R. 1.2, 1.3 (indicating that S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 79.2 applies to both civil and criminal actions). 5 Contrary to Eil's assertions, the DEA did not waive its argument that the deceased patients' family members have distinct privacy interests in the death-related records. The DEA highlighted these privacy interests in its motion for summary judgment and Eil argued that there is no privacy interest in autopsy reports in his motion for summary judgment. - 14 - surrounding their relatives' deaths. 541 U.S. at 170-71. The Court also implicitly recognized that family members have privacy interests in their deceased relatives' autopsy records. See id. at 168-70 (noting that the common law recognizes the privacy interests of a decedent's immediate relatives in the decedent's autopsy records, and that FOIA provides broader protection for privacy interests than the common law (citing Reid v. Pierce County, 961 P.2d 333, 342 (Wash. 1998))). Given the Supreme Court's recognition of these interests, the district court erred when it failed to address them and instead focused exclusively on the privacy interests of the living former patients whose medical records are the subject of Eil's request. See Eil, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 487-88.