Michael Rimmer v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24019
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Rimmer was convicted and sentenced to death in Tennessee state court for Ellsworth’s murder in 1998.
- He learned of a joint FBI–Memphis Police Department investigation and claims exculpatory material existed.
- Rimmer obtained some materials from the Memphis Police Department but sought a complete record from the FBI via FOIA.
- FOIA request yielded 616 pages (later expanded to 786 pages) with 704 pages redacted; 539 redactions were disputed.
- District court conducted an in camera review, then dismissed APA and mandamus claims and granted summary judgment for FOIA, upholding Exemptions 7(C) and 7(D) and some Exemption 6 redactions.
- On appeal, Rimmer challenges the district court’s FOIA ruling and argues for APA/mandamus relief or alternative access under Touhy; the court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FOIA provides an adequate remedy precluding APA/mandamus claims. | Rimmer argues FOIA is not an adequate remedy. | FOIA provides an adequate, de novo remedy, barring APA/mandamus. | Yes, FOIA provides an adequate remedy; APA/mandamus barred. |
| Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on FOIA for redactions under Exemption 7(C) (and 6). | Rimmer contends more material should be disclosed; 7(C) errors alleged. | Redactions based on 7(C) (and grouping with 6) are proper after in camera review. | Correct; 7(C) (and 6) redactions upheld. |
| Whether Exemption 7(D) redactions (confidential sources) were properly applied. | Rimmer claims source identities could be disclosed; argues overreach. | Source identities were properly protected; intent to keep confidential persisted. | Yes, 7(D) redactions proper. |
| Whether Rimmer has an independent APA or mandamus remedy via Touhy or another path. | Rimmer could pursue an APA/remedial path beyond FOIA. | Touhy framework or FOIA provides adequate remedy; APA/mandamus barred. | APA/mandamus claim barred; Touhy path acknowledged as alternative. |
| Whether FOIA exemptions should be interpreted to serve broader public-interest outcomes in a capital-murder context. | Rimmer seeks public-interest benefit from disclosure to challenge possible misconduct. | Public interest must be significant and likely to be served by disclosure; private interest cannot substitute for public inquiry. | Exemptions applied; public-interest threshold not met. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 F.2d 749 (Supreme Court, 1989) (balancing test for Exemption 7(C))
- National Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (Supreme Court, 2004) (significant public interest required for disclosure)
- Rugiero v. United States Department of Justice, 257 F.3d 534 (6th Cir., 2001) (exemption 7(C) privacy/public-interest balancing; in camera review permitted)
- Jones v. FBI, 41 F.3d 238 (6th Cir., 1994) (presumption of good faith for agency affidavits; in camera review when necessary)
- Kiraly v. FBI, 728 F.2d 273 (6th Cir., 1984) (privacy interests of individuals mentioned in law enforcement files)
- National Archives v. Roth, - (D.C. Cir., 2011) (discussed in context of 7(D) and Glomar/FOIA exemptions)
- Landano v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 956 F.2d 422 (3d Cir., 1992) (no FOIA interest in state misconduct; limits of public-interest scope)