Union Leader Corporation v. DHS, ICE, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Union Leader Corporation v. DHS, ICE, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/22

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1752

UNI ON LEADER CORPORATI ON,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

U. S. DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURI TY,U. S. I MMI GRATI ON AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,

Def endant , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF NEW HAMPSHI RE

[ Hon. Paul J . Bar bador o, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Howar d, and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

Gr egor y V. Sul l i van, wi t h whom Mal l oy & Sul l i van, Lawyer sPr of essi onal Cor por at i on was on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Mi chael McCor mack, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whomJ ohn P. Kacavas, Uni t ed Stat es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

Apr i l 18, 2014


2/22

HOWARD, Circuit Judge. I n Sept ember 2011, as part of a

nat i onwi de enf orcement operat i on, I mmi gr at i on and Cust oms

Enf orcement ( I CE) agent s i n New Hampshi r e ar r est ed si x al i ens who

had pr i or cr i mi nal convi ct i ons or ar r est s. Af t er I CE r ef used t o

di vul ge t he names and addr esses of t hese si x i ndi vi dual s, t he Uni on

Leader - - a New Hampshi r e newspaper and t he appel l ant i n t hi s case

- - f i l ed a Freedom of I nf or mat i on Act ( FOI A) compl ai nt t o compel

di scl osur e of t hi s i nf or mat i on. The di st r i ct cour t awar ded summar y

j udgment t o I CE, concl udi ng t hat FOI A exempted t hi s per sonal

i nf or mat i on f r om di scl osur e as an unwar r ant ed i nvasi on of t he

ar r est ed al i ens' pr i vacy. Because we f i nd t hat t he publ i c i nt er est

i n di scl osur e out wei ghs t he ar r est ees' pr i vacy i nt er est s, we

concl ude that t he wi t hhel d i nf or mat i on t hat i s subj ect t o thi s

appeal i s not exempt f r om di scl osur e and t her ef or e r ever se t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of summar y j udgment i n par t .

I.

I n 2011, I CE ( a di vi si on of t he Uni t ed St at es Depar t ment

of Homel and Secur i t y ( DHS) ) conduct ed t wo nat i onwi de "Cr oss Check"

oper at i ons i n an endeavor t o ar r est al i ens wi t h pr i or convi ct i ons

or arr est s, i ncl udi ng "cr i mi nal f ugi t i ves; cri mi nal al i ens who

i l l egal l y re- ent er ed t he Uni t ed St at es af t er havi ng been r emoved,

and at l arge cr i mi nal al i ens. " On Sept ember 28, 2011, I CE i ssued

a pr ess r el ease det ai l i ng t he 2, 901 ar r est s made as par t of t he

second Cr oss Check operat i on t hat mont h. Among t he arr est s l i st ed

-2-


3/22

i n t he pr ess r el ease were those made i n each count y of each New

Engl and st at e, i ncl udi ng si x ar r est s made i n t he st at e of New

Hampshi r e.

The f ol l owi ng mont h, t he Uni on Leader cont act ed an I CE

publ i c af f ai r s of f i cer t o request t he names and addr esses of t he

si x i ndi vi dual s ar r est ed i n New Hampshi r e. The I CE of f i cer r epl i ed

wi t h i nf or mat i on i ncl udi ng each ar r est ee' s sex, age, nat i onal i t y,

st at e of ar r est ( i . e. , New Hampshi r e) , pr i or convi ct i ons, and I CE

cust ody st atus, but di d not pr ovi de t he ar r est ees' names and

addr esses.

I n Febr uary 2012, t he Uni on Leader submi t t ed a FOI A

r equest t o I CE, seeki ng pr oduct i on of "any and al l r ecor ds and

document s r el at i ng t o, and/ or concer ni ng t he si x i ndi vi dual s

arr est ed" by I CE dur i ng t he second Cr oss Check operat i on i n New

Hampshi r e. 1 I CE r evi ewed t he r equest and f ound some ni net een pages

of r esponsi ve document s, consi st i ng of I - 213 f or ms document i ng t he

arr est s of each of t he si x al i ens appr ehended i n New Hampshi r e. 2

1The Uni on Leader had previ ousl y f i l ed a FOI A compl ai nt i n t heDi st r i ct of New Hampshi r e, whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t di smi ssed f orf ai l ur e t o exhaust admi ni st r at i ve r emedi es ( i . e. , t he Uni onLeader ' s f ai l ur e t o f i l e a f or mal FOI A r equest wi t h I CE pr i or t of i l i ng sui t ) . See Uni on Leader Cor p. v. U. S. Dep' t of Homel andSec. , I mmi gr at i on & Cust oms Enf orcement , No. 12- cv- 18- J L, 2012 WL

1000333 ( D. N. H. Mar . 23, 2012) .

2An I - 213 f or m document s t he ar r est of an al i en unl awf ul l ypr esent i n t he Uni t ed St at es. I n addi t i on t o t he ci r cumst ances oft he ar r est , t he f or mcont ai ns t he name, al i en number , addr ess, dat eof bi r t h, phot ogr aph, f i nger pr i nt s, cr i mi nal and i mmi gr at i onhi st or y, and ot her i nf or mat i on about t he ar r est ee.

-3-


4/22

I n Mar ch 2012, I CE pr ovi ded t he Uni on Leader wi t h copi es of t he

f or ms f r omwhi ch t he al i ens' names, addr esses, and ot her per sonal

i nf ormat i on had been r edact ed. I n an accompanyi ng "Vaughn i ndex, " 3

I CE cl ai med t hat FOI A exempt ed t hi s per sonal i nf or mat i on f r om

di scl osure under Exempt i ons 6 and 7( C) , 5 U. S. C. 552( b) ( 6) &

( 7) ( C) .

The r edact ed I - 213 f or ms out l i ned t he cr i mi nal hi st or i es

and ar r est r ecor ds of t he si x al i ens. The f or ms reveal ed pr i or

ar r est s and convi ct i ons dat i ng as f ar back as 1993, i ncl udi ng,

i nt er al i a, pr i or not i ce t o appear ( NTA) ar r est s and pr i or

convi ct i ons f or ent r y wi t hout i nspect i on, shopl i f t i ng, possessi on

of cont r ol l ed subst ances, r esi st i ng ar r est , cri mi nal t r espassi ng,

and dr i vi ng under t he i nf l uence of dr ugs or l i quor . Accor di ng t o

t he f or ms, t hr ee of t he ar r est ed al i ens wer e pr ocessed and served

wi t h warr ant s of arr est and not i ces t o appear ( WA/ NTA) f or r emoval

pr oceedi ngs, whi l e anot her was ordered r emoved by an i mmi gr at i on

j udge and pl aced i n I CE cust ody pendi ng r emoval ; t wo ot her s woul d

be "NTA- pr ocessed and schedul ed f or a hear i ng bef ore EOI R [ t he

Execut i ve Of f i ce f or I mmi gr at i on Revi ew] at a l at er dat e. "

3A Vaughn i ndex i s a "now st andard t ool concei ved by t heDi st r i ct of Col umbi a ci r cui t t o f aci l i t at e r esol ut i on of FOI A

di sput es, " der i ved f r om t he D. C. Ci r cui t ' s deci si on i n Vaughn v.Rosen, 484 F. 2d 820 ( D. C. Ci r . 1973) . Chur ch of Sci ent ol ogyI nt ' l v. U. S. Dep' t of J ust i ce, 30 F. 3d 224, 227 & n. 4 ( 1st Ci r .1994) . The i ndex " i ncl udes a general descr i pt i on of each documentsought by t he FOI A r equest er and expl ai ns t he agency' sj ust i f i cat i on f or nondi scl osur e of each i ndi vi dual document orpor t i on of a document . " I d. at 228.

-4-


5/22

The Uni on Leader admi ni st r at i vel y appeal ed I CE' s deci si on

t o r edact t he ar r est ees' names and addr esses. On March 28, 2012,

t he I CE Of f i ce of t he Pr i nci pal Legal Advi sor , Gover nment

I nf or mat i on Law Di vi si on, r esponded t o t he Uni on Leader ' s appeal

and af f i r med I CE' s deci si on t o redact t he names and addr esses.

The Uni on Leader f i l ed t hi s l awsui t on Apr i l 4, 2012,

al l egi ng t hat I CE i ncor r ect l y appl i ed FOI A Exempt i ons 6 and 7( C)

and t hat FOI A gave t he Uni on Leader a r i ght of access t o t he

r edact ed names and addresses. On cr oss mot i ons f or summary

j udgment , t he di st r i ct cour t grant ed I CE' s mot i on f or summar y

j udgment on t he ground t hat FOI A Exempt i on 7( C) prot ect ed t he

ar r est ees' names and addr esses f r om di scl osur e. Thi s appeal

f ol l owed.

II.

On appeal , t he Uni on Leader onl y chal l enges I CE' s

r edact i on of t he ar r est ees' names, and no l onger seeks pr oduct i on

of t hei r addr esses or any ot her per sonal i nf or mat i on. Thi s

di st i nct l y nar r ower r equest mi ght be vi ewed as subst ant i vel y

di f f er ent t han t he br oader one wi t h whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t was

f aced - - we do not know how t he cour t woul d have r ul ed had i t been

pr esent ed onl y wi t h t he request t hat we consi der on appeal - - but

t he i ssue i s never t hel ess pr eserved. I n any event , we r evi ew de

novo t he di st r i ct cour t ' s det er mi nat i on that t he names wer e exempt

f r om di scl osur e. See Car pent er v. U. S. Dep' t of J ust i ce, 470 F. 3d

-5-


6/22

434, 437 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ; Chur ch of Sci ent ol ogy I nt ' l v. U. S. Dep' t

of J ust i ce, 30 F. 3d 224, 228 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) .

The Supreme Cour t has st at ed t hat FOI A was "enact ed t o

f aci l i t at e publ i c access t o Gover nment document s" and "desi gned t o

pi er ce t he vei l of admi ni st r at i ve secr ecy and t o open agency act i on

t o t he l i ght of publ i c scrut i ny. " U. S. Dep' t of St at e v. Ray, 502

U. S. 164, 173 ( 1991) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . FOI A' s "basi c pol i cy of f ul l agency di scl osur e" f ur t her s

t he st at ut e' s essent i al pur pose of per mi t t i ng ci t i zens t o know

"what t hei r gover nment i s up t o. " U. S. Dep' t of J ust i ce v.

Report ers Comm. f or Fr eedomof t he Pr ess, 489 U. S. 749, 773 ( 1989)

( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so

Nat ' l Ar chi ves & Recor ds Admi n. v. Favi sh, 541 U. S. 157, 171

( 2004) .

Thi s r i ght of access i s not absol ute, however , as FOI A

exempt s cer t ai n cat egor i es of mat er i al s f r omdi scl osur e i n or der t o

"ef f ect uat e t he goal s of t he FOI A whi l e saf eguar di ng t he ef f i ci ent

admi ni st r at i on of t he gover nment . " Car pent er , 470 F. 3d at 438; see

al so 5 U. S. C. 552( b) ( set t i ng f or t h t he st at ut or y exempt i ons) .

Never t hel ess, i n keepi ng wi t h FOI A' s under l yi ng pr esumpt i on i n

f avor of br oad di scl osur e, t he government agency bear s t he bur den

of pr ovi ng t he appl i cabi l i t y of a speci f i c stat ut or y exempt i on.

See Car pent er , 470 F. 3d at 438; Chur ch of Sci ent ol ogy, 30 F. 3d at

228. "That bur den r emai ns wi t h t he agency when i t seeks t o j ust i f y

-6-


7/22

t he r edact i on of i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on i n a par t i cul ar document

as wel l as when i t seeks t o wi t hhol d an ent i r e document . " Ray, 502

U. S. at 173. The di st r i ct cour t must det er mi ne de novo whet her t he

agency has met t hi s burden. See Repor t er s Comm. , 489 U. S. at 755;

Car pent er , 470 F. 3d at 438; Chur ch of Sci ent ol ogy, 30 F. 3d at 228.

FOI A Exempt i on 7( C) , 5 U. S. C. 552( b) ( 7) ( C) , shi el ds

f r om di scl osur e "r ecor ds or i nf or mat i on compi l ed f or l aw

enf or cement pur poses, but onl y t o the extent t hat t he pr oduct i on of

such l aw enf or cement r ecor ds or i nf or mat i on . . . coul d r easonabl y

be expect ed t o const i t ut e an unwar r ant ed i nvasi on of per sonal

pr i vacy. " 4 I n det er mi ni ng whet her an i nvasi on of per sonal pr i vacy

i s " unwar r ant ed, " cour t s must bal ance t he i mpl i cat ed pr i vacy

i nt er est agai nst t he publ i c i nt er est i n r el easi ng t he mat er i al s.

Favi sh, 541 U. S. at 171; Repor t ers Comm. , 489 U. S. at 762; see al so

Car pent er , 470 F. 3d at 438. We addr ess each i nt er est i n t ur n.

4Bot h I CE and t he di st r i ct cour t al so recogni zed t he pot ent i alappl i cabi l i t y of FOI A Exempt i on 6, 5 U. S. C. 552( b) ( 6) , whi chpr ot ect s f r om di scl osur e "per sonnel and medi cal f i l es and si mi l arf i l es t he di scl osur e of whi ch woul d const i t ut e a cl ear l yunwar r ant ed i nvasi on of per sonal pr i vacy. " Exempt i on 6 i s l esspr ot ect i ve of personal pr i vacy than Exempt i on 7( C) , however ,appl yi ng onl y to di scl osur es t hat "woul d const i t ut e a cl ear l yunwar r ant ed i nvasi on of per sonal pr i vacy" r at her t han t odi scl osur es t hat mer el y "coul d r easonabl y be expect ed t o const i t ut e

an unwar r ant ed i nvasi on of per sonal pr i vacy. " See Favi sh, 541 U. S.at 165- 66; Report ers Comm. , 489 U. S. at 756. Because t he part i esdo not di sput e t hat t he r equest ed i nf or mat i on was "compi l ed f or l awenf or cement pur poses, " t he di st r i ct cour t anal yzed t he Uni onLeader ' s cl ai m onl y under Exempt i on 7( C) , Uni on Leader Cor p. v.U. S. Dep' t of Homel and Sec. , I mmi gr at i on & Cust oms Enf orcement , 940F. Supp. 2d 22, 27- 28 ( D. N. H. 2013) , and we f ol l ow sui t .

-7-


8/22

A. Arrestees' Privacy Interests

"FOI A' s cent r al pur pose i s t o ensur e t hat t he

Gover nment ' s act i vi t i es be opened t o t he shar p eye of publ i c

scr ut i ny, not t hat i nf or mat i on about pr i vat e ci t i zens t hat happens

t o be i n t he warehouse of t he Government be so di scl osed. "

Repor t er s Comm. , 489 U. S. at 774. Accor di ngl y, i n appl yi ng

Exempt i on 7( C) , t he Cour t has r ej ect ed "cr amped not i on[ s] of

per sonal pr i vacy, " i d. at 763, and i nst ead has i nt er pr et ed t he

exempt i on as " pr ot ect [ i ng] a br oad not i on of per sonal pr i vacy,

i ncl udi ng an i ndi vi dual ' s i nt er est i n avoi di ng di scl osur e of

per sonal mat t er s, " Car pent er , 470 F. 3d at 438. Thi s pr i vacy

i nt er est "i s at i t s apex" i n cases wher e t he subj ect of t he

r equest ed mat er i al s i s a pr i vat e ci t i zen, Favi sh, 541 U. S. at 166

( quot i ng Repor t er s Comm. , 489 U. S. at 780) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks omi t t ed) . Not wi t hst andi ng t hese gener al pr i nci pl es, however ,

we have decl i ned t o "prescr i be a f ormul a f or measur i ng t he i mpact

of t he pr i vacy i nvasi on r esul t i ng f r om di scl osur e, " and have

i nst ead descr i bed t he pr i vacy i nt er est as a "var i abl e" t hat "must

be det ermi ned and wei ghed i n l i ght of t he par t i cul ar ci r cumst ances

i n each case. " Pr ovi dence J our nal Co. v. U. S. Dep' t of Ar my, 981

F. 2d 552, 569 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) .

On appeal , t he Uni on Leader chal l enges t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s concl usi on t hat t he ar r est ees had a cogni zabl e pr i vacy

i nt er est "i n not havi ng t hei r i dent i t i es r eveal ed t o t he publ i c"

-8-


9/22

and t hat t hi s i nt er est t r umped t he publ i c i nt er est i n di scl osur e.

Uni on Leader Cor p. v. U. S. Dep' t of Homel and Sec. , I mmi gr at i on &

Cust oms Enf orcement , 940 F. Supp. 2d 22, 28 ( D. N. H. 2013) . We

f ul l y agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi on t hat di scl osur e

woul d i ndeed i mpl i cat e t he ar r est ees' pr i vacy i nt er est s; our

qui bbl e i s onl y wi t h t he wei ght t hat t he di st r i ct cour t gave t hat

i nt er est i n t he Exempt i on 7( C) bal anci ng.

The Uni on Leader i ni t i al l y makes t he cat egor i cal cl ai m

t hat " [ n] o i ndi vi dual has a r easonabl e expect at i on of pr i vacy

r egar di ng a publ i c ar r est by t he gover nment , " r el yi ng on casel aw

hol di ng t hat "[ n] o const i t ut i onal r i ght of pr i vacy i s vi ol at ed even

by t he di scl osur e ' of an of f i ci al act such as an ar r est . ' " Am.

Fed' n of Gov' t Emps. v. Dep' t of Hous. & Ur ban Dev. , 118 F. 3d 786,

794 ( D. C. Ci r . 1997) ( emphasi s added) ( quot i ng Paul v. Davi s, 424

U. S. 693, 713 ( 1976) ) . As t he di st r i ct cour t r ecogni zed, t hi s

r el i ance i s mi spl aced, because " t he st at ut or y pr i vacy r i ght

prot ect ed by Exempt i on 7( C) goes beyond t he common l aw and t he

Const i t ut i on. " Favi sh, 541 U. S. at 170; see al so Repor t er s Comm. ,

489 U. S. at 762 n. 13 ( speci f i cal l y di st i ngui shi ng Paul because

"[ t ] he quest i on of t he st at ut or y meani ng of pr i vacy under t he FOI A

i s, of cour se, not t he same as . . . t he quest i on whet her an

i ndi vi dual ' s i nt er est i n pr i vacy i s pr ot ect ed by t he

Const i t ut i on") . We t her ef or e agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat

" i t i s a mi st ake t o assume, as t he Uni on Leader does i n t hi s case,

-9-


10/22

t hat a r ul i ng t hat t he Const i t ut i on does not r equi r e t he Gover nment

t o wi t hhol d t he name of an ar r est ed person means t hat t he

government must di scl ose t he same i nf ormat i on under t he FOI A. "

Uni on Leader , 940 F. Supp. 2d at 28. 5

The Supr eme Cour t ' s deci si on i n Repor t er s Commi t t ee makes

cl ear t hat t he ar r est ees do i ndeed have a pr i vacy i nt er est

concer ni ng t hei r under l yi ng convi ct i ons and ar r est s. I n hol di ng

t hat Exempt i on 7( C) bar r ed t he di scl osur e of an al l eged or gani zed

cr i me f i gur e' s FBI " r ap sheet , " t he Repor t er s Commi t t ee Cour t

expl ai ned t hat di scl osur e woul d i mpl i cat e t he i ndi vi dual ' s pr i vacy

i nt er est even t hough t he under l yi ng event s of hi s cr i mi nal hi st or y

wer e mat t er s of publ i c r ecor d:

Accor di ng t o Webst er ' s i ni t i al def i ni t i on,i nf or mat i on may be cl assi f i ed as " pr i vat e" i fi t i s "i nt ended f or or r est r i cted t o t he useof a par t i cul ar per son or gr oup or cl ass ofper sons: not f r eel y avai l abl e t o t he publ i c. "Recogni t i on of t hi s at t r i but e of a pr i vacyi nt er est suppor t s t he di st i nct i on, i n t er ms ofper sonal pr i vacy, bet ween scat t er ed di scl osur eof t he bi t s of i nf or mat i on cont ai ned i n a r ap

5For si mi l ar r easons, we r espect f ul l y decl i ne t o r el y onTennessean Newspaper , I nc. v. Levi , 403 F. Supp. 1318, 1321 ( M. D.Tenn. 1975) , whi ch t he Uni on Leader ci t es f or t he proposi t i on t hatpr i vacy i nt er est s ar e i nsubst ant i al i n t he case of "per sonsar r est ed or i ndi cted f or f eder al cri mi nal of f enses. " TheTennessean cour t r easoned t hat such i ndi vi dual s "ar e essent i al l y

publ i c per sonages" whose l i ves "ar e no l onger t r ul y pr i vat e" ; i n anaccompanyi ng f oot note, i t dr ew an anal ogy to " t he publ i c personagei dea der i ved f r om t he [ pr i vacy] t or t cases. " I d. at 1321 & n. 1.We quest i on t he val i di t y of t hat anal ogy i n l i ght of t he Supr emeCour t ' s subsequent di st i nct i on of FOI A pr i vacy i nt er est s f r omt or t -l aw pr i vacy i nt er est s i n Repor t er s Commi t t ee, 489 U. S. at 762 n. 13.

-10-


11/22

sheet and r evel at i on of t he rap sheet as awhol e. The ver y f act t hat f eder al f unds havebeen spent t o pr epar e, i ndex, and mai nt ai nt hese cr i mi nal - hi st or y f i l es demonst r at es t hatt he i ndi vi dual i t ems of i nf or mat i on i n t hesummari es woul d not otherwi se be "f r eel y

avai l abl e" ei t her t o t he of f i ci al s who haveaccess t o t he under l yi ng f i l es or t o t hegener al publ i c. I ndeed, i f t he summar i es wer e" f r eel y avai l abl e, " t her e woul d be no r easont o i nvoke t he FOI A t o obt ai n access t o thei nf or mat i on t hey cont ai n. Gr ant ed, i n manycont ext s t he f act t hat i nf or mat i on i s notf r eel y avai l abl e i s no r eason t o exempt t hati nf or mat i on f r oma st at ut e gener al l y r equi r i ngi t s di ssemi nat i on. But t he i ssue her e i swhet her t he compi l at i on of ot her wi sehar d- t o- obt ai n i nf or mat i on al t er s t he pr i vacyi nt er est i mpl i cat ed by di scl osur e of t hati nf or mat i on. Pl ai nl y t her e i s a vastdi f f er ence bet ween t he publ i c r ecor ds t hatmi ght be f ound af t er a di l i gent sear ch ofcour t house f i l es, count y ar chi ves, and l ocalpol i ce st at i ons t hr oughout t he count r y and acomput er i zed summary l ocat ed i n a si ngl ecl ear i nghouse of i nf or mat i on.

489 U. S. at 763- 64. " I n sum, " t he Cour t l at er concl uded, " t he f act

t hat an event i s not whol l y pr i vat e does not mean t hat an

i ndi vi dual has no i nt er est i n l i mi t i ng di scl osur e or di ssemi nat i on

of t he i nf or mat i on. " I d. at 770 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) .

Nevert hel ess, al t hough t he Report ers Commi t t ee Cour t

r ecogni zed a pr i vacy i nt er est i n an i ndi vi dual ' s cr i mi nal hi st or y,

i t di d not have occasi on t o consi der t he st r engt h of t hat pr i vacy

i nt er est . I nst ead, t he Cour t si mpl y f ound no count er vai l i ng publ i c

i nt er est , st at i ng t hat t he r equest i ng par t y di d not "i nt end t o

di scover anyt hi ng about t he conduct of t he agency t hat has

-11-


12/22

possessi on of t he r equest ed r ecords" and t hat "di scl osure woul d not

shed any l i ght on t he conduct of any Gover nment agency or

of f i ci al . " I d. at 773 ( emphasi s added) . Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t

cat egor i cal l y hel d t hat a " r equest f or l aw enf or cement r ecor ds or

i nf or mat i on about a pr i vat e ci t i zen can r easonabl y be expect ed t o

i nvade t hat ci t i zen' s pr i vacy, and t hat when t he request seeks no

' of f i ci al i nf or mat i on' about a Gover nment agency, but mer el y

r ecor ds t hat t he Government happens t o be st or i ng, t he i nvasi on of

pr i vacy i s ' unwar r ant ed. ' " I d. at 780.

Thi s case does not f al l wi t hi n t hat cat egor i cal hol di ng,

because, as we expl ai n bel ow, t he Uni on Leader has i dent i f i ed a

publ i c i nt er est i n di scl osur e of t he ar r est ees' names. We must

t her ef or e assess t he st r engt h of t he ar r est ees' pr i vacy i nt er est s

i n or der t o appr opr i at el y bal ance t hose i nt er est s agai nst t he

publ i c i nt er est i n di scl osur e. I n so doi ng, we t ake our gui dance

f r om t he Cour t ' s subsequent st at ement i n Ray t hat "whet her

di scl osur e of a l i st of names i s a si gni f i cant or a de mi ni mi s

t hr eat [ t o pr i vacy] depends upon t he char act er i st i c( s) r eveal ed by

vi r t ue of bei ng on t he par t i cul ar l i st , and t he consequences l i kel y

t o ensue. " 502 U. S. at 176 n. 12 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal

quot at i ons omi t t ed) .

The Uni on Leader di r ect s our at t ent i on t o t he Souther n

Di st r i ct of New Yor k' s deci si on i n New Yor k Ti mes Co. v. U. S.

Depar t ment of Homel and Secur i t y, 959 F. Supp. 2d 449 ( S. D. N. Y.

-12-


13/22

2013) , whi ch f ound Exempt i on 7( C) i nappl i cabl e i n ci r cumst ances

r oughl y si mi l ar t o t hose of t hi s case. The New Yor k Ti mes and a

r epor t er submi t t ed a FOI A r equest t o I CE, seeki ng pr oduct i on of "a

l i st of al l al i ens si nce 2008 who, af t er bei ng convi ct ed of a cr i me

and ser vi ng t hei r sent ence, wer e desi gnat ed f or r emoval but wer e

r el eased f r omDHS cust ody pur suant t o Zadvydas [ v. Davi s, 533 U. S.

678 ( 2001) ] . " I d. at 450. Af t er I CE pr ovi ded a spr eadsheet

cont ai ni ng each al i en' s cr i mi nal convi ct i ons, dat e of r el ease, and

i mmi gr at i on st at us, t he New Yor k Ti mes and t he repor t er f i l ed sui t

t o obt ai n t he al i ens' names, whi ch I CE had r edact ed under Exempt i on

7( C) . The Sout her n Di st r i ct of New Yor k r ecogni zed t hat di scl osur e

of t he names woul d i mpl i cate a pr i vacy i nt er est under Repor t er s

Commi t t ee - - speci f i cal l y, "t hat of convi ct ed cr i mi nal s i n not

r el easi ng i n compi l ed f or mi nf or mat i on whi ch i s al r eady publ i c" - -

but f ound t hat i nt er est "si gni f i cant l y di mi ni shed" gi ven t he publ i c

avai l abi l i t y of t he under l yi ng i nf or mat i on. I d. at 455.

We f i nd t he New Yor k Ti mes cour t ' s r easoni ng apposi t e,

and we al so not e t hat The Buf f al o Eveni ng News, I nc. v. Uni t ed

St at es Bor der Pat r ol , 791 F. Supp. 386 ( W. D. N. Y. 1992) , a case

ci t ed by t he di st r i ct cour t and r el i ed upon by I CE, i s par t l y

di st i ngui shabl e i n i t s anal ysi s of t he i mpl i cat ed pr i vacy i nt er est .

Al t hough Buf f al o Eveni ng News al so i nvol ved a FOI A r equest f or

per sonal i nf or mat i on r edact ed f r om I - 213 f or ms det ai l i ng t he

appr ehensi on of i l l egal al i ens, t he r equest was f ar br oader i n

-13-


14/22

scope t han t he Uni on Leader ' s, wi t h t he pl ai nt i f f newspaper seeki ng

not onl y t he appr ehended al i ens' names but al so, i nt er al i a, t hei r

addr esses, passpor t and soci al secur i t y numbers, and t he names and

addr esses of t hei r spouses, par ent s, and empl oyer s. I d. at 396.

Moreover , t he Buf f al o Eveni ng News cour t pr esumed t hat " t he News

i nt end[ ed] t o cont act t he al i ens, t hei r f ami l i es or t hose t hi r d

par t i es ment i oned i n f ur t her ance of i t s i nvest i gat i on of t he

[ Uni t ed St at es Bor der Pat r ol ] ' s act i vi t i es, " r ai si ng t he specter of

"possi bl e conf r ont at i on wi t h t he al i ens, t hei r f ami l i es or t hi r d

par t i es. " I d. at 398; see al so New Yor k Ti mes, 959 F. Supp. 2d at

456 ( "[ P] l ai nt i f f s do not pr opose t o cont act t he i ndi vi dual s i n

f ur t her ance of t hei r i nvest i gat i on - - a der i vat i ve use whi ch t he

Second Ci r cui t hel d ' dr amat i cal l y i ncreases t he al r eady si gni f i cant

t hr eat t o t he pr i vacy i nt er est s t hat di scl osur e of t hi s i nf or mat i on

woul d ent ai l . ' " ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal br acket s omi t t ed) ) .

Her e, as i n New Yor k Ti mes, t he Uni on Leader has s t at ed t hat i t has

no i nt ent i on of cont act i ng t he i ndi vi dual s, and t hat i t onl y seeks

t o r evi ew t he publ i c recor ds of t hei r pr i or ar r est s and

convi ct i ons.

We t heref ore concl ude t hat al t hough t he arr est ees have a

cogni zabl e pr i vacy i nt er est i n t hei r names, t hat i nt er est i s

at t enuat ed bot h by t he st at us of t hei r under l yi ng convi ct i ons and

ar r est s as mat t er s of publ i c r ecor d and by the l i mi t ed nat ur e of

-14-


15/22

t he Uni on Leader ' s pr oposed i nvest i gat i on. Havi ng f i l l ed t he f i r st

pan of t he Exempt i on 7( C) scal es, we now t ur n t o t he second.

B. Public Interest in Disclosure

I n assessi ng whet her t he publ i c i nt er est i n di scl osur e

out wei ghs t he ar r est ees' count er vai l i ng pr i vacy i nt er est s and

t her ef or e war r ant s an i nvasi on of t hei r pr i vacy, we must consi der

" t he nat ur e of t he request ed document and i t s r el at i onshi p t o the

basi c pur pose of t he Fr eedom of I nf or mat i on Act t o open agency

act i on t o t he l i ght of publ i c scrut i ny. " Repor t er s Comm. , 489 U. S.

at 772 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see

al so Car pent er , 470 F. 3d at 440. That pur pose i s ser ved by

di scl osur e of "[ o] f f i ci al i nf or mat i on t hat sheds l i ght on an

agency' s per f or mance of i t s st at ut or y dut i es, " but not "by

di scl osur e of i nf or mat i on about pr i vat e ci t i zens t hat i s

accumul at ed i n var i ous gover nment al f i l es but t hat r eveal s l i t t l e

or nothi ng about an agency' s own conduct . " Repor t ers Comm. , 489

U. S. at 773; see al so Car pent er , 470 F. 3d at 440- 41.

Accor di ngl y, wher e Exempt i on 7( C) pr i vacy concer ns ar e

i mpl i cat ed, t he r equest i ng par t y must show "[ f ] i r st , . . . t hat t he

publ i c i nt er est sought t o be advanced i s a si gni f i cant one, an

i nt er est mor e speci f i c t han havi ng t he i nf or mat i on f or i t s own

sake, " and "[ s] econd, . . . [ t hat ] t he i nf or mat i on i s l i kel y t o

advance t hat i nt er est . " Favi sh, 541 U. S. at 172. "Ot her wi se, t he

i nvasi on of pr i vacy i s unwar r ant ed. " I d. Mor eover , wher e " t he

-15-


16/22

publ i c i nt er est bei ng asser t ed i s t o show t hat r esponsi bl e

of f i ci al s act ed negl i gent l y or ot her wi se i mpr oper l y i n t he

per f or mance of t hei r dut i es, t he request er must est abl i sh mor e than

a bar e suspi ci on i n or der t o obt ai n di scl osur e, " and i nst ead "must

pr oduce evi dence that woul d warr ant a bel i ef by a r easonabl e person

t hat t he al l eged Gover nment i mpr opr i et y mi ght have occur r ed. " I d.

at 174; see al so Ray, 502 U. S. at 178- 79; Sussman v. U. S. Marshal s

Ser v. , 494 F. 3d 1106, 1115 ( D. C. Ci r . 2007) .

I n t he Uni on Leader ' s est i mat i on, " [ t ] he names of t he

[ ar r est ees] ar e necessary i n or der f or Uni on Leader t o under t ake

t he i mpor t ant and vi t al t ask of r evi ewi ng t he per f or mance of

gover nment al act or s and agenci es, both f eder al and st at e. " Mor e

speci f i cal l y, t he Uni on Leader cl ai ms t hat obt ai ni ng t he names wi l l

enabl e i t and t he publ i c "t o moni t or t he pr ocessi ng of t he

[ ar r est ees] by t he agenci es and cour t s r esponsi bl e f or i mmi gr at i on

pol i cy. " For i nst ance, i n t he case of one of t he al i ens, who was

order ed r emoved by an i mmi grat i on j udge i n 1988 and convi ct ed of

cr i mi nal t r espassi ng i n 1993, t he Uni on Leader st at es t hat wi t hout

t hi s i ndi vi dual ' s name, i t "cannot det er mi ne what communi cat i on, i f

any, was t r ansmi t t ed t o or f r om I CE or any ot her st at e or f eder al

agency, and what pr oceedi ngs, i f any, t ook pl ace subsequent t o t hat

r emoval or der i n 1988" such t hat t hi s al i en st i l l r emai ned i n New

Hampshi r e 23 years l ater .

-16-


17/22

The Uni on Leader r ai sed t he same ar gument bef or e t he

di st r i ct cour t dur i ng a hear i ng on t he par t i es' cr oss mot i ons f or

summar y j udgment . 6 I n gr ant i ng I CE' s mot i on f or summary j udgment ,

t he di st r i ct cour t r ej ect ed t he Uni on Leader ' s pr of f er ed "publ i c

i nt er est " as based "ent i r el y on specul at i on about what t he publ i c

mi ght l ear n i f t he names and addr esses of t he arr est ees were

di scl osed" - - i . e. , t he possi bi l i t y t hat "t he publ i c mi ght be abl e

t o use t he names and addr esses t o di scover addi t i onal r el evant

i nf or mat i on. " Uni on Leader , 940 F. Supp. 2d at 29. The di st r i ct

cour t f ound t hi s case cont r ol l ed by the Supr eme Cour t ' s hol di ng i n

Ray, whi ch r ej ect ed an asser t ed publ i c i nt er est based mer el y on

"t he hope that r espondent s, or other s, may be abl e t o use [ t he

r equest ed] i nf or mat i on t o obt ai n addi t i onal i nf or mat i on out si de t he

Government f i l es" and concl uded t hat " [ m] ere specul at i on about

hypot het i cal publ i c benef i t s cannot out wei gh a demonst r abl y

6I CE suggest s t hat t he Uni on Leader has pr oposed t hesespeci f i c uses f or t he ar r est ees' names f or t he f i r st t i me on t hi sappeal . We di sagr ee. Al t hough t he Uni on Leader ' s appel l at e br i efi s mor e det ai l ed i nsof ar as i t expl ai ns t he i mpor t ance of eachi ndi vi dual ar r est ee' s name, t he Uni on Leader ' s argument bef or e t hedi st r i ct cour t was essent i al l y i dent i cal t o i t s ar gument on appeal .The Uni on Leader st at ed bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t he r edact ed

document s r eveal ed a "pat t er n of i nef f i ci ency . . . wher eas t hesepeopl e have been . . . ar r est ed and convi ct ed over and over agai nhere i n New Hampshi r e over a ten year per i od" and posi t ed t hatdi scl osure of t he ar r est ees' names coul d "expose i ncompet ence,i nef f i ci ency, " enabl i ng t he Uni on Leader t o di scover why t hei ndi vi dual s wer e "al l owed t o st ay i n t he Uni t ed St at es" f or so l ongaf t er t hei r convi cti ons.

-17-


18/22

si gni f i cant i nvasi on of pr i vacy. " 502 U. S. at 178- 79; see al so

Favi sh, 541 U. S. at 174. 7

I n r eachi ng t hi s concl usi on, t he di st r i ct cour t not ed

t hat i t "j oi n[ ed] sever al ot her di st r i ct cour t s t hat have uphel d

t he redact i on of i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on f r om I - 213 f or ms under

Except i on 7( C) of t he FOI A. " Uni on Leader , 940 F. Supp. 2d at 29-

30 ( ci t i ng Uni dad Lat i na en Acci n v. U. S. Dep' t of Homel and Sec. ,

253 F. R. D. 44, 51 ( D. Conn. 2008) ; Schi l l er v. I mmi gr at i on &

Nat ur al i zat i on Ser v. , 205 F. Supp. 2d 648, 664 ( W. D. Tex. 2002) ;

Buf f al o Eveni ng News, 791 F. Supp. at 400) . Each of t hese cases

f ound an i nsuf f i ci ent publ i c i nt er est t o war r ant an i nvasi on of t he

appr ehended al i ens' pr i vacy. I n Buf f al o Eveni ng News, whi ch

pr ovi des t he most t hor ough and cogent anal ysi s, t he pl ai nt i f f

newspaper cont ended t hat di scl osur e of t he appr ehended al i ens'

r edact ed per sonal i nf or mat i on was "necessary to t est t he ver aci t y

of t he [ Bor der Pat r ol ' s] conduct . " 791 F. Supp. at 398. However ,

t he pl ai nt i f f coul d poi nt t o no evi dence of gover nment al mi sconduct

or mendaci t y. I n keepi ng wi t h Ray and Favi sh, t he cour t f ound t hat

t hi s "mer e al l egat i on of gover nment mi sconduct i s not enough to

ci r cumvent an ot her wi se f aci al l y pr oper exempt i on, " not i ng t hat

7The Ray Cour t decl i ned, however , t o adopt a "cat egor i calr ul e" al t oget her excl udi ng such "der i vat i ve uses" f r om t he publ i ci nt er est cal cul us, and r el i ed si mpl y on t he f act t hat t her e was noevi dence showi ng t hat t he pr oposed der i vat i ve use "woul d pr oduceany rel evant i nf or mat i on t hat i s not set f or t h i n t he document st hat have al r eady been pr oduced. " 502 U. S. at 178- 79.

-18-


19/22

" [ o] t her wi se, a r equest i ng par t y di sappoi nt ed wi t h a r esponse t o

i t s FOI A i nqui r y coul d avoi d t he st at ut or y exempt i ons t o di scl osur e

by r ai si ng t he spect er of gover nment mi sconduct . " I d. at 399.

The Uni on Leader suggest s t hat t hi s case i s cl oser t o New

York Ti mes, wher e t he di st r i ct cour t f ound a suf f i ci ent publ i c

i nt er est t o war r ant di scl osur e. The pl ai nt i f f s i n t hat case di d

not "asser t a di r ect publ i c i nt er est i n knowi ng t he names of

i ndi vi dual s bei ng r el eased" f r omDHS cust ody, but r at her cont ended

t hat t he names woul d l ead to addi t i onal i nf or mat i on that "woul d

shed f ur t her l i ght on cr i t i cal aspect s of t he gover nment ' s handl i ng

of i t s r emoval dut i es, " al l owi ng t he newspaper t o "mor e f ul l y

moni t or how of t en cour t s gave l esser sent ences t o al i ens because

pr osecut ors and j udges mi st akenl y bel i eved that r emoval was t o

f ol l ow sent ence and how of t en DHS f ai l ed to seek l onger det ent i ons

f or i ndi vi dual s who, accor di ng t o cour t r ecor ds, posed a ri sk t o

t he communi t y. " 959 F. Supp. 2d at 454- 55 ( i nt ernal br ackets and

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I n suppor t of t hi s ar gument , t he

pl ai nt i f f s poi nt ed t o sever al i nst ances i n whi ch t hey wer e "abl e t o

l ear n t hr ough di l i gent r epor t i ng despi t e t he secrecy i mposed by DHS

of sever al quest i onabl e exer ci ses of DHS' s di scr et i on under

Zadvydas. " I d. at 455 & n. 44 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

I n l i ght of t hat evi dence, t he cour t concl uded t hat t he newspaper ' s

al l egat i ons of government al i mpr opr i ety were based on more than

"bar e suspi ci on" ( t her eby sat i sf yi ng Favi sh' s r equi r ement ) and t hat

-19-


20/22

"di scl osur e of t he names woul d f ur t her t he l egi t i mat e publ i c

i nt erest i n knowi ng how government agenci es make deci si ons. " I d.

at 456.

We bel i eve t hat t hi s case f al l s cl oser t o New Yor k Ti mes

t han t o Buf f al o Eveni ng News, and we t heref ore concl ude t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t gave i nadequat e wei ght t o t he publ i c i nt er est i n

di scl osure. Li ke t he New Yor k Ti mes, t he Uni on Leader can poi nt t o

"evi dence that woul d war r ant a bel i ef by a r easonabl e per son" t hat

such negl i gence mi ght have occur r ed: namel y, t he r edacted I - 213

f orms I CE has al r eady produced, whi ch document t he appr ehensi on of

al i ens who had been convi ct ed of cr i mes and/ or ordered r emoved f r om

t he Uni t ed St at es as l ong as 23 year s bef or e t hei r 2011 ar r est s.

Favi sh, 541 U. S. at 174. Al t hough t hat del ay i s har dl y concl usi ve

evi dence of negl i gence, or ot her wr ongdoi ng on t he par t of I CE, we

bel i eve t hat i t i s at l east enough t o war r ant a r easonabl e bel i ef

" t hat t he al l eged Gover nment i mpr opr i et y mi ght have occur r ed. " I d.

( emphasi s added) .

Di scl osure of t he r edact ed names wi l l enabl e t he Uni on

Leader t o i nvest i gat e publ i c r ecor ds per t ai ni ng t o t he ar r est ees'

pr i or convi ct i ons and ar r est s, pot ent i al l y br i ngi ng t o l i ght t he

r easons f or I CE' s appar ent t or por i n r emovi ng t hese al i ens. 8 Cf .

8We note, however , t hat r evi ewi ng t he per f ormance of st ategover nment al ent i t i es i s not a val i d publ i c pur pose under FOI A,whi ch "appl i es onl y t o f eder al execut i ve br anch agenci es. " Phi l i pMor r i s, I nc. v. Har shbar ger , 122 F. 3d 58, 83 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) ; seeal so, e. g. , Ri mmer v. Hol der , 700 F. 3d 246, 258- 59 ( 6t h Ci r . 2012)

-20-


21/22

Ci t i zens f or Responsi bi l i t y and Et hi cs i n Washi ngt on v. U. S. Dep' t

of J ust i ce, No. 12- 5223, 2014 WL 1284811, at *6 ( D. C. Ci r . Apr . 1,

2014) ( "Di scl osure of t he r ecor ds woul d l i kel y r eveal much about

t he di l i gence of t he FBI ' s i nvest i gat i on and t he DOJ ' s exer ci se of

i t s pr osecut or i al di scr et i on: whet her t he gover nment had t he

evi dence but never t hel ess pul l ed i t s punches. " ) . The r edact ed

names are t heref ore more t han mere " i nf ormat i on about pr i vat e

ci t i zens t hat i s accumul at ed i n var i ous gover nment al f i l es but t hat

r eveal s l i t t l e or not hi ng about an agency' s own conduct . "

Repor t er s Comm. , 489 U. S. at 773. I nst ead, t hei r di scl osur e wi l l

f or war d t he l egi t i mat e publ i c i nt er est i n "knowi ng what [ t he]

Gover nment i s up t o, " i d. - - a publ i c i nt er est t hat I CE i t sel f

i mpl i ci t l y acknowl edged i n i t s i ssuance of a pr ess r el ease

t r umpet i ng t he Oper at i on Cr oss Check ar r est s. That publ i c i nt er est

out wei ghs t he ar r est ees' at t enuat ed pr i vacy i nt er est s i n t hei r

under l yi ng ar r est s and convi ct i ons, whi ch ar e al r eady mat t er s of

publ i c r ecor d. We t her ef or e hol d t hat Exempt i on 7( C) i s

i nappl i cabl e i n these ci r cumst ances.

( "FOI A i s concer ned onl y wi t h sheddi ng l i ght on mi sconduct of t hef eder al gover nment , not st at e gover nment s. . . . [ J ] ust as t her e i sno FOI A- r ecogni zed publ i c i nt er est i n di scover i ng evi dence i n

f eder al gover nment f i l es of a pr i vat e par t y' s vi ol at i on of t he l aw,t her e i s no FOI A- r ecogni zed publ i c i nt er est i n di scover i ngwr ongdoi ng by a st at e agency. " ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ( i nt er nalquot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . We t her ef or e r ej ect t he Uni on Leader ' sar gument t hat di scl osur e of t he ar r est ees' names al so ser ves acogni zabl e publ i c i nt er est i n r evi ewi ng t he per f or mance of st at ecour t s and agenci es.

-21-


22/22

III.

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we reverse in part t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s order gr ant i ng I CE' s mot i on f or summar y j udgment

and r emand f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on.

-22-

Documents

Union Leader Corporation v. DHS, ICE, 1st Cir. (2014)