Roth Ex Rel. Bower v. United States Department of Justice
395 U.S. App. D.C. 340
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Death-row Texas inmate Bower claims the FBI's files may corroborate his innocence; Roth seeks FBI records under FOIA.
- FBI provided a Glomar response to Roth's first request, refusing to confirm/deny whether records exist about three alleged killers.
- Second request targeted specific FBI files; 62 pages at issue, with 36 fully withheld and 26 released with redactions.
- District court granted summary judgment favoring FBI on Glomar response; in camera review upheld exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(D) for most redactions.
- Roth appeals, arguing public interest in potential innocence evidence overrides third-party privacy interests under Exemption 7(C) and that 7(D) applies to some redactions.
- Court applies Favish framework, balancing public interest in discovery of innocence-corroborating information against third-party privacy interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 7(C) allows Glomar responses for Gordon, Langford, and Ford. | Roth argues public interest outweighs privacy; Glomar appropriate only if records would invade privacy. | FBI maintained Glomar to avoid associating third parties with crimes; disclosure would invade privacy. | Yes, Exemption 7(C) permits Glomar; court declines to require disclosure absent Favish threshold. |
| Whether the public has a significant interest justifying disclosure under Favish. | Disclosing could show FBI withholding exculpatory evidence or corroborate innocence claim. | Favish threshold not met; generic public interest insufficient to override privacy. | Favish threshold satisfied for Gordon/Langford/Ford; balance favors disclosure of existence of records. |
| Whether Exemption 7(D) applies to redactions in Roth/Bower 108 and 112-13 paragraphs. | Some redactions lack adequate justification; must reveal sources or corroborating data. | Most redactions are from confidential sources; exemptions valid. | Exemption 7(D) not fully satisfied for certain paragraphs; require district court to segregate non-exempt materials. |
| Whether the FBI properly withheld under Exemption 6 and 7(C) the in-camera reviewed documents. | Redactions may conceal information that could corroborate innocence; privacy interests limited by public interest. | Privacy interests prevail; documents do not reveal Brady violations; public interest modest. | Yes for 6 and 7(C) in most redactions; some portions require segregation by the district court. |
| Did the court err by adopting a non-categorical Favish approach to Exemption 7(C) in a death-penalty context? | Death-row context justifies a broader public interest; not protected by blanket precedence. | Longstanding FOIA precedent favors privacy; Favish does not create a general death-penalty exception. | Majority approves Favish-based balancing; dissent argues for categorical rule; court continues Favish framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 F.2d 749 (U.S. 1989) (privacy protections; categorical approach in Exemption 7(C))
- National Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (U.S. 2004) (Favish threshold for public interest in extinction of privacy rights)
- United States v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1993) (confidential-source doctrine; evidence required for confidentiality)
- Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C.Cir. 1973) (Vaughn index; detailed justification for exemptions)
- Phillippi v. CIA, 655 F.2d 1325 (D.C.Cir. 1981) (Glomar response origin; agency may deny existence of records)
- Schrecker v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 349 F.3d 657 (D.C.Cir. 2003) (privacy interests in law-enforcement files)