Joel Havemann v. Carolyn Colvin
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-01235-JFM. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999704747]. [15-1294]
Appeal: 15-1294
Doc: 28
Filed: 11/23/2015
Pg: 1 of 8
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1294
JOEL HAVEMANN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Administration,
Acting
Commissioner,
Social
Security
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:12-cv-01235-JFM)
Submitted:
October 30, 2015
Decided:
November 23, 2015
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James L. Fuchs, SNIDER & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney,
Joseph R. Baldwin, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-1294
Doc: 28
Filed: 11/23/2015
Pg: 2 of 8
PER CURIAM:
Joel
granting
Havemann
summary
appeals
judgment
from
to
the
district
Defendants
in
court’s
his
order
Freedom
of
Information Act (FOIA) proceeding against the Social Security
Administration (SSA).
order
to
write
an
Havemann sought the disclosure of data in
article
shortchanged beneficiaries.
about
large
groups
of
allegedly
The SSA released some of the data
requested, but withheld other data after determining that its
release
could
result
in
the
identification
of
personal
information about numerous individuals.
On review of the district court’s grant of summary judgment
in favor of the Government in a FOIA action, we must determine
de novo whether, after taking the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmovant, there remains any genuine issue of
material fact and whether the Government is entitled to summary
judgment as a matter of law.
See Ethyl Corp. v. United States
Envtl. Prot. Agency, 25 F.3d 1241, 1246 (4th Cir. 1994).
FOIA
requires federal agencies to disclose agency records unless they
may be withheld pursuant to one of nine enumerated exemptions
listed in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (2012).
A defendant agency has the
burden of establishing the adequacy of its search and that any
identifiable document has either been produced or is subject to
withholding under an exemption.
See Carney v. United States
Dep’t of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir. 1994).
2
This burden
Appeal: 15-1294
Doc: 28
Filed: 11/23/2015
Pg: 3 of 8
may be met through affidavits explaining the manner in which the
search was conducted.
An
agency’s
nonconclusory
See id.
affidavits
in
order
must
to
be
support
relatively
a
FOIA
detailed
and
exemption.
See
Simmons v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 796 F.2d 709, 711-12
(4th Cir. 1986); see also Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v.
Kleppe,
547
F.2d
673,
680
(D.C.
Cir.
1976)
(holding
that
conclusory and generalized allegations are unacceptable as means
of
sustaining
the
burden
of
nondisclosure).
The
court
is
entitled to accept the credibility of such affidavits, so long
as it has no reason to question the good faith of the agency.
See Bowers v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 930 F.2d 350, 357
(4th Cir. 1991); see also Carney, 19 F.3d at 812 (holding that
such affidavits are accorded a presumption of good faith).
To
prevail over this presumption a requestor must demonstrate a
material
other
issue
by
appropriate
producing
means,
evidence,
through
contradicting
search or suggesting bad faith.
the
affidavits
adequacy
of
or
the
See Miller v. United States
Dep’t of State, 779 F.2d 1378, 1384 (8th Cir. 1985).
When
deciding whether these burdens have been met, the district court
must
consider
everything
in
the
light
most
favorable
to
the
nonmoving party.
Determining
whether
an
agency’s
documents
involve
information “the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
3
Appeal: 15-1294
Doc: 28
Filed: 11/23/2015
Pg: 4 of 8
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6)
(“Exemption
6”),
requires
individual's
right
of
opening
agency
this
privacy
action
to
court
against
the
light
“to
the
of
balance
basic
public
the
policy
of
scrutiny.”
Yonemoto v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 686 F.3d 681, 693 (9th
Cir. 2012).
At step one, the court looks to see whether there
is any privacy interest that outweighs the generalized public
interest in disclosure; if so, the court then looks (at step
two) to see if the public interests in disclosing the particular
information requested outweigh those privacy interests.
694.
Id. at
“[T]he only relevant public interest in the FOIA balancing
analysis is the extent to which disclosure of the information
sought
would
statutory
she[d]
duties
or
government is up to.”
U.S.
355,
355–56
light
on
an
otherwise
agency's
let
performance
citizens
know
of
what
its
their
Bibles v. Or. Natural Desert Ass'n, 519
(1997)
(per
curiam)
(quotation
marks
and
citations omitted, alteration in original).
We find that the evidence produced by the SSA appropriately
outlined
its
withholding
search
certain
for
data
responsive
or
data
portions
and
its
thereof.
reasons
for
Thus,
the
Defendant has met its burden of showing that it performed an
adequate search and that data has either been produced or is
subject to withholding under Exemption 6.
4
Appeal: 15-1294
Doc: 28
Filed: 11/23/2015
Pg: 5 of 8
In an effort to rebut the SSA’s evidence, Havemann asserts
that the district court improperly considered affidavits from a
previous case, erroneously relied upon interested “experts,” and
considered affidavits that were merely speculative.
However, we
held in the previous litigation over the release of similar data
fields that the “SSA thoroughly analyzed and demonstrated the
methods
through
which
the
withheld
data
identification of specific individuals.”
could
lead
to
Havemann v. Colvin,
537 F. App’x 142, 147 (4th Cir. Aug. 1, 2013) (No. 12-2453).
Besides
claiming
previous
that
litigation
the
and
requests
that
the
were
different
district
court
in
failed
the
to
conduct a lengthy analysis of the similarity, Havemann fails to
show
what
error
occurred
from
considering
evidence
in
the
previous case, or why the methodology and conclusions in the
previous case cannot be applied in the present case, to the
extent they are relevant.
Further, our review leads us to the conclusion that the
previous and current affidavits are not speculative, but rather
contained
specific
identifiable
publicly
when
available
numbers
and
percentages
combining
Havemann’s
records.
Finally,
of
requested
with
persons
data
regard
to
and
the
affidavits being rendered by persons working for the SSA, it is
unclear who else could opine as to the methodology undertaken to
respond to Havemann’s requests, and Havemann has made no showing
5
Appeal: 15-1294
Doc: 28
Filed: 11/23/2015
of bad faith.
Pg: 6 of 8
Thus, we hold that the district court correctly
relied upon the SSA’s evidence in determining that the SSA had
shown a risk of disclosure of personal information.
Havemann next contends that the need for public disclosure
outweighed
the
risk
of
invasions
of
privacy.
Specifically,
Havemann asserts that release of the requested information will
identify multiple underpaid beneficiaries and that time is of
the essence, because beneficiaries are dying.
However, it is
undisputed that Havemann would be unable to make any eligibility
determinations for benefits based solely on data, because such a
determinations
require
examination
of
many
different
and
complicated variables including work issues, prior filings, and
auxiliary
benefits.
information
sought
Further,
by
the
Havemann
SSA
points
would
be
out
that
the
overinclusive,
permitting him to identify numerous individuals who have already
been paid and who have had their claims rejected, as well as
those who may potentially have a claim.
In addition, Havemann
has failed to show how the withheld data fields are necessary or
helpful to his calculations and research and why the data fields
he has received are insufficient for his purposes.
Accordingly,
the district court did not err in concluding that the public
interest did not outweigh the privacy interests involved.
Next, Havemann asserts that the SSA’s delay in responding
to his requests was improper and that the determination that the
6
Appeal: 15-1294
SSA
Doc: 28
was
appropriately
litigation
excuse.
Filed: 11/23/2015
was
Pg: 7 of 8
awaiting
improper
result
the
SSA
because
of
the
never
initial
raised
that
However, our review of the record shows that the SSA
appropriately
overlapping
and
FOIA
reasonably
requests
replied
that
improper,
cannot
information.
be
a
to
involved
sensitive personal information.
if
the
Havemann’s
possible
multiple,
exposure
of
Moreover, the SSA’s delay, even
basis
for
disclosing
personal
Instead, the proper relief would be an injunction
against future actions, relief that Havemann has not requested.
See Mayock v. Nelson, 938 F.2d 1006, 1007-08 (9th Cir. 1991).
Finally, Havemann contends that the district court did not
properly consider his request for a protective order that would
reserve to the SSA the ability to make any actual contact with
beneficiaries.
“[t]here
is
no
However,
mechanism
the
Supreme
under
FOIA
Court
for
a
has
noted
protective
that
order
allowing only the requestor to see whether the information bears
out his theory, or for proscribing its general dissemination.”
Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 174
(2004).
As such, any information that would permit Havemann to
locate potential beneficiaries would also permit anybody else
who
obtains
the
released
beneficiaries.
Thus,
order
contact
not
to
even
information
were
them,
an
Havemann
order
to
locate
under
a
could
not
these
protective
prevent
non-parties from using and disclosing the personal information
7
Appeal: 15-1294
Doc: 28
involved.
Filed: 11/23/2015
Accordingly,
the
Pg: 8 of 8
district
court
did
not
err
in
rejecting this claim.
Thus, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this
court
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?