Roth v. United States Department of Justice
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87206, 656 F. Supp. 2d 153 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the strong privacy interests of individuals mentioned in law enforcement records (Exemption 7(C)) outweigh the public interest in disclosure unless the requester provides compelling evidence of government misconduct. A requester's personal interest in obtaining potentially exculpatory information for a criminal appeal does not qualify as a public interest in this balancing test.
Facts:
- Anthony Roth is an attorney representing Lester Leroy Bower, Jr., who was convicted in 1984 for four murders committed in 1983 and sentenced to death.
- Roth believed other individuals—specifically Ford, Langford, and Gordon—were identified by witnesses as having committed the murders for which Bower was convicted.
- On January 3, 2008, Roth filed FOIA requests with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) seeking information related to the murder investigation.
- One request sought all documents related to the FBI's investigation of Bower.
- A separate request sought all documents pertaining to Ford, Langford, and Gordon.
- In response to the request about the investigation, the FBI released over 1,300 pages, many with redactions, and withheld other documents entirely.
- The FBI refused to process the request for records on Ford, Langford, and Gordon, stating it could not do so without privacy waivers or proof of death, as all three were presumed to be alive.
Procedural Posture:
- Anthony Roth filed a lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging its response to his FOIA requests.
- Roth's complaint alleged that the FBI improperly refused to process his request for information on three third parties and improperly withheld or redacted documents related to the investigation of his client.
- The FBI moved for summary judgment, arguing it had properly invoked FOIA exemptions to withhold the information.
- Roth filed a cross-motion requesting a more detailed index of withheld documents or an in camera review by the court.
- The District Court ordered the FBI to produce the 66 documents still in dispute for its private, in camera review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the FBI's refusal to process a FOIA request for records concerning living third parties without their consent, and its decision to withhold or redact other law enforcement records under Exemptions 6 and 7(C), lawfully protect personal privacy under FOIA?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle
Yes. The FBI's actions are lawful because the privacy interests of third parties mentioned in law enforcement files significantly outweigh the asserted public interest in disclosure. The court must balance the privacy interests against the public interest, and the only relevant public interest under FOIA is one that contributes to the public's understanding of government operations, not the personal interest of a litigant. Mr. Bower's desire to find potentially exculpatory evidence to appeal his conviction is a personal interest, not a public one. To overcome the strong privacy protections of Exemption 7(C) by alleging government wrongdoing, the requester must provide compelling evidence, not just a 'bare suspicion.' Roth failed to provide such evidence, so the privacy interests of the individuals in the files prevail. Therefore, the FBI properly refused to confirm or deny the existence of records for the three third parties and was justified in redacting names and identifying information from the other documents.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high barrier for obtaining third-party information from law enforcement files under FOIA. It firmly establishes that FOIA cannot be used as a tool for criminal discovery, separating a litigant's personal quest for exculpatory evidence from the Act's purpose of government transparency. The ruling solidifies the government's power to use a 'Glomar' response (refusing to confirm or deny records' existence) when requests could associate individuals with a criminal investigation. For future cases, this precedent makes it significantly harder to compel disclosure of law enforcement records involving private individuals without showing compelling evidence of agency misconduct.
