79 F. Supp. 3d 167
D.D.C.2015Background
- Pro se plaintiff Gregory Bartko, serving a prison term, sought records under FOIA to support alleged prosecutorial misconduct; USPIS located >1000 pages and referred 136 pages to the IRS because they originated there.
- The 136 pages are memoranda of witness interviews prepared by IRS Special Agent William DeSantis in an IRS criminal investigation of a third party (not Bartko).
- The IRS withheld all 136 pages in full, invoking FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
- Bartko sued, and cross-motions for summary judgment followed; USPIS later withdrew its portion and IRS stood on its brief.
- The Court considered whether the records were exempt from disclosure under Exemption 7(C) (and 6), applying the FOIA balancing test and segregability requirements.
- The Court concluded the records were law-enforcement materials, that disclosure would invade substantial privacy interests of the investigation subject and witnesses, Bartko offered no showing that disclosure was necessary to reveal agency illegality, and that the IRS satisfied segregability. Judgment for the IRS was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IRS may withhold memoranda of witness interviews under FOIA Exemption 7(C) (and Exemption 6) | Bartko asserted the interviewees were co-defendants/co-conspirators whose statements are relevant to his prosecution (implying public interest in disclosure) | IRS argued records were law-enforcement materials about a third-party investigation, disclosure would identify the investigation subject and witnesses, and privacy outweighs any public interest | Court held records were compiled for law enforcement; Exemption 7(C) applies; privacy interests outweigh public interest because Bartko failed to show disclosure is necessary to expose agency illegality |
| Whether Exemption 6 independently bars disclosure | Implied that Exemption 6 should not apply because relevance to Bartko's case favors disclosure | IRS invoked Exemption 6 but court noted 7(C) provides broader protection and 7(C) alone suffices | Court declined to reach Exemption 6 on merits because Exemption 7(C) controlled and justified withholding |
| Whether plaintiff met Schrecker/SafeCard "confirmation or refutation of compelling evidence" exception | Plaintiff did not provide compelling evidence that the agency engaged in illegal activity requiring disclosure | IRS contended plaintiff offered no evidence meeting that narrow exception | Court held plaintiff did not meet the high showing required; exception not satisfied |
| Whether the IRS adequately addressed segregability | Plaintiff challenged segregability as conclusory | IRS provided declarations explaining non-segregability given risk of identifying subjects/witnesses | Court accepted IRS’s segregability explanation as adequate under the circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (privacy interest scope for law-enforcement records)
- Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (FOIA’s purpose and disclosure presumption)
- Schrecker v. Dep’t of Justice, 349 F.3d 657 (categorical rule allowing withholding of third-party identities absent need to confirm/refute agency illegality)
- ACLU v. Dep’t of Justice, 655 F.3d 1 (Exemption 7(C) lower bar than Exemption 6)
- Multi Ag Media v. USDA, 515 F.3d 1224 (definition of a "substantial" privacy interest)
- Hodge v. FBI, 703 F.3d 575 (presumption of agency compliance with segregability obligation)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (agency affidavits can support summary judgment in FOIA cases)
- SafeCard Sys., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (standard for withholding identifying information in law-enforcement files)