921 F. Supp. 2d 148
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Cook, a Gawker political reporter, FOIA-requested NARA records on Bush/Cheney special access; NARA withheld under PRA and Exemption 6; litigation ensued with cross-motions for summary judgment.
- PRA defines presidential records and excludes personal records; access restrictions include five-year archival period and up to 12-year restricted period reserved for former officials and designees.
- NARA classifies special access requests as researcher reference requests; such requests allegedly reveal identity and substance, supporting Exemption 6.
- NARA initially withheld special access requests for all but public-access requests; reconsideration allowed access for incumbent officials but withheld for Bush/Cheney and their designees.
- Parties narrowed issues to the disclosure of special access requests and NARA’s responses; court conducted de novo review on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether special access requests are ‘similar files’ under Exemption 6 | Cook argues records are not similar files and should be disclosed | NARA contends records are similar files containing personal data | Yes, records are ‘similar files’ |
| Whether disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy | Public interest outweighs privacy interests | Bush, Cheney, and designees have substantial privacy interests; public interest is minimal | Disclosures would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington Post Co. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 456 U.S. 589 (1982) (broadly defines ‘similar files’ and privacy balance)
- Wood v. FBI, 432 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2005) (tests whether records are akin to personnel/medical files and balance)
- Department of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (FOIA purpose to shed light on agency actions)
- Hopkins v. U.S. Dept. of Hous. & Urban Dev., 929 F.2d 81 (2d Cir. 1991) (broad privacy interest in balancing)
- Families for Freedom v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 837 F.Supp.2d 287 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (distinguishes ‘similar files’ vs. mundane interoffice emails)
- Simpson v. Vance, 648 F.2d 10 (D.C.Cir. 1980) (marital status and spouses as similar-file examples)
- Perlman v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 312 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2002) (investigative records as ‘similar files’)
- Halpern v. FBI, 181 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 1999) (Vaughn indexing justification standard)