American Civil Liberties Union v. United States Department of Justice
398 U.S. App. D.C. 1
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- FoIA case where ACLU seeks DOJ records on government use of warrantless cell phone location data; district court ordered some disclosures and withheld others under Exemptions 6 and 7(C); DOJ produced Vaughn index and a docket list for 255 prosecutions; dispute over whether docket info (case name, docket number, court) should be released for prosecutions ending in conviction/public guilty plea; district court allowed release for those cases but withheld for acquittals/dismissals/sealed; concerns about disclosure of the two internal draft/template applications (Documents 22, 29) and their docket numbers; appellate court to determine privacy/public-interest balance and remand for uncertain items; court ultimately affirms some disclosure and remands others for further record development.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 7(C) permits disclosure of docket information for convictions/public pleas. | ACLU argues public interest outweighs privacy for convictions. | DOJ argues privacy interests in docket data are substantial. | Yes to disclosure for convictions/public pleas. |
| Whether Exemption 7(C) allows withholding of docket information for acquittals, dismissals, or sealed cases. | ACLU seeks disclosure for all 255 prosecutions regardless of outcome. | DOJ privacy concerns justify withholding for non-conviction cases. | Remand to determine if any such cases exist; partial withholding unresolved. |
| Whether derivative use of docket information to locate underlying records is admissible for public-interest balancing. | Disclosing docket data serves FOIA purpose by informing about government practices. | Derivative-use benefits should not be considered. | Derivative-use considered in public-interest analysis; supports disclosure. |
| Whether disclosure of Documents 22 (Draft Application) and 29 (Template Application) should be required. | Redacts/docket-level disclosure should suffice; drafts/templates not required. | Documents may be protected by Exemption 5 or reveal third-party privacy. | Remand to resolve status of documents and whether they fit relevant exemptions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (U.S. 1989) (privacy interests in law-enforcement records; public-interest balance; categorical privacy protections)
- United States v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1991) (derivative-use concept in public-interest balancing)
- Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (U.S. 2004) (privacy vs public-interest in FOIA; need for substantial public-interest showing)
- Dep't of Defense v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487 (U.S. 1994) (derivative-use considerations in balancing privacy/public-interest under FOIA Exemption 7(C))
- Horner v. NARFE, 879 F.2d 873 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (privacy interests in FOIA; delineation of substantial privacy interests)