Skinner v. United States Department of Justice
806 F. Supp. 2d 105
D.D.C.2011Background
- Skinner, pro se, filed FOIA action against DOJ and four components for records relating to him; District Court had resolved EOUSA and FBI claims in another ruling.
- BATFE responded to Skinner’s July 3, 2007 FOIA request by releasing 100 pages on November 21, 2007, with some pages referred to Army and USCIS.
- In December 2007, after a payment of fees, BATFE released additional documents; subsequently, 34 more pages were released on October 26, 2009 following litigation review.
- A CD containing 8 photographs related to the request was inadvertently not released; BATFE later released the CD with the plaintiff-identified photo released and the other image redacted under Exemption 7(C).
- Army referred 12 pages to its records, including discharge-related documents; Army redacted third-party names under Exemption 6 and released the rest.
- USCIS received a December 13, 2007 TECS-derived document, redacted internal codes and officer identifiers under Exemptions 2, 7(C), and 7(E); released December 27, 2007.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 2 applies after Milner decision | Skinner asserts Exemption 2 still protects TECS access codes. | Defendants contend Milner narrowed Exemption 2 to personnel relations only. | Exemption 2 not applicable for TECS access codes; grant in part denied. |
| Whether Army redactions under Exemption 6 were proper | Skinner argues redactions may be overbroad or incomplete. | Army redacted third-party names to protect privacy; information is segregable. | Army complied; redactions appropriate; remaining information released. |
| Whether Exemption 7(C) protects names/identifiers of law enforcement personnel | Disclosure would aid public understanding and accountability. | Privacy interests of individuals mentioned in records outweigh public interest. | Exemption 7(C) applied; names/identifiers redacted. |
| Whether Exemption 7(E) protects TECS techniques and guidelines | Requested TECS-related information should be disclosed as public record. | TECS techniques and guidelines would risk circumvention if disclosed. | Exemption 7(E) properly applied; TECS-relevant information withheld. |
| Whether the agency provided sufficient summary judgment showing | Speculates about possession of criminal exhibits; alleges withholding of evidence. | Filed declarations show produced or appropriately exempted records; no genuine issue as to material fact. | Summary judgment granted for BATFE, Army, and USCIS on the challenged exemptions; partial denial regarding Exemption 2. |
Key Cases Cited
- Milner v. Dep't of the Navy, 131 S. Ct. 1259 (2011) (exemption 2 scope limited to personnel rules and practices)
- Washington Post Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 690 F.2d 252 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (privacy balancing framework for Exemption 6)
- Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (public interest balancing for Exemption 7(C))