Bloomgarden v. United States Department of Justice
874 F.3d 757
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- Bloomgarden, a federal prisoner serving life without parole, sought under FOIA a proposed termination letter sent in the 1990s to an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) in EDNY that alleged professional deficiencies.
- The DOJ released about 3,600 pages of supporting exhibits but withheld the proposed termination letter itself under FOIA Exemption 6 (personal privacy).
- The district court reviewed the letter in camera, concluded it described only "garden-variety incompetence and insubordination," and found the AUSA's privacy interest outweighed the public interest; it granted summary judgment for the government.
- Bloomgarden appealed, arguing the public interest (including scrutiny of prosecutors and potential relevance to his criminal cases) outweighed the AUSA’s privacy.
- The court observed the letter contained allegations never tested or adopted as final agency findings, the exhibits disclosed were largely routine case materials, and there was no evidence the letter had been publicly disclosed by the AUSA (no waiver).
- The Court affirmed: Exemption 6 protects the letter because disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and the limited public interest did not overcome that privacy interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOJ properly withheld the proposed termination letter under FOIA Exemption 6 | Bloomgarden: Public has interest in DOJ prosecutor discipline; letter may show prosecutorial misconduct or departmental laxness and could aid his criminal defense | DOJ: Letter contains untested, private allegations about a former AUSA; disclosure would cause professional embarrassment and is protected by Exemption 6 | Held for DOJ: Privacy interest in alleged, unadopted disciplinary material clearly outweighs the limited public interest; Exemption 6 applies |
| Whether the public interest must account for requester’s private litigation interests | Bloomgarden: His need for the letter in contesting sentence is relevant to public interest | DOJ: FOIA public-interest inquiry excludes requestor’s private needs; only the general public’s interest counts | Held: Court reiterates Reporters Committee rule—only general public interest counts; individual requester’s litigation motive is not considered |
| Whether the AUSA’s status as a government employee diminishes his privacy claim | Bloomgarden: Former AUSA should have reduced privacy since he was a government lawyer | DOJ: Former employee retains substantial privacy, especially for unproven allegations | Held: A former government employee has significant privacy interests; the fact he was a prosecutor does not defeat Exemption 6 here |
| Whether the AUSA waived privacy by placing the letter into the public domain | Bloomgarden: Hints of MSPB filings imply possible public disclosure or waiver | DOJ: No record shows the letter was made public; plaintiff bears burden to prove waiver | Held: No waiver shown; plaintiff failed to meet burden of demonstrating public disclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (public-interest inquiry excludes requestor’s private motive)
- Roth v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 642 F.3d 1161 (public interest can be substantial where FOIA request concerns potential innocence in capital cases)
- Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (Congressional drafting distinguishes Exemption 6 and Exemption 7(C))
- Wash. Post Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 690 F.2d 252 (strong presumption in favor of disclosure under Exemption 6 noted)
- ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 750 F.3d 927 (concern about publicizing unproven allegations)
- Davis v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 968 F.2d 1276 (plaintiff bears burden to show government disclosure waived privacy)
- Davy v. CIA, 456 F.3d 162 (prevailing-party and costs principles in FOIA context)