Star Publishing Company et al v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service et al
Filing
51
ORDER ADOPTING 48 Report and Recommendation.Defendants need not further redact the documents at issue. The Courts staff shall return the in camera documents (discussed in this Order and the Courts April 23, 2014, Order) and the emails between t he magistrate judge and Defendants counsel to counsel for Defendants. Counsel for Defendants shall retain the documents for any appellate review. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and shall then close its file. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 9/3/14. (SMBE)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
STAR PUBLISHING COMPANY;
TONY DAVIS,
9
Plaintiffs,
10
vs.
11
12
13
14
UNITED STATES FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE; UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CIV 13-080-TUC-CKJ
ORDER
15
On July 8, 2014, Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro issued a Report and
16
Recommendation (Doc. 48) in which he recommended that this Court find Defendants have
17
complied with their obligations under the Freedom of Information Act. Plaintiffs have filed
18
an Objection and Defendants have filed a response.
19
20
I. Report and Recommendation
21
The magistrate judge summarized the procedural history of the case, including the
22
additional proceedings since this matter was referred back to the magistrate judge for further
23
proceedings. The magistrate judge found the current redacted version of Document Three
24
(Interview Transcript) and Document Five sufficiently protect privacy interests without
25
redacting additional non-identifying material. The magistrate judge stated Defendants have
26
provided a copy of the final redactions to Plaintiffs.
27
28
1
II. In Camera Review
2
The Court has reviewed the documents that are the subject of this litigation. As stated
3
by the magistrate judge, the magistrate judge forwarded these documents and the emails
4
between the magistrate judge and counsel for Defendants to this Court.
5
6
III. Privacy Interests – Names of Public Officials and Other Private Individuals
7
Plaintiffs again argue the names of employees of the United States Fish and Wildlife
8
Service ("Service") involved in the Macho B case should be disclosed in Document Three
9
and Document Five. Indeed, Plaintiffs argue that additional transparency is needed because
10
the Document Three transcript shows that an Arizona Game and Fish Department (“AGFD”)
11
“is at least as concerned how state and federal officials manage the ‘story’ of the capture and
12
death of ‘Macho B” as finding out what happened.” Objection , Doc. 49, p. 2. Further,
13
Plaintiffs incorporate previous arguments they have made.
14
In “balanc[ing] the privacy interests of the individuals protected against the public
15
interest at stake[,]” Rosenfeld v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 57 F.3d 803, 808 (9th Cir. 1995), the
16
Court considers that the public interest in the disclosure of the names and identifying
17
information does not greatly advance the public interest and the disclosure of names and
18
identifying information will not appreciably further the public's right to monitor Defendants'
19
actions. However, the disclosure of the names and identifying information would constitute
20
a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy under 5 U.S.C. § 522(b)(6) and could reasonably
21
be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under 5 U.S.C. §
22
552(b)(7). See Lahr v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964, 975-77 (9th Cir. 2009) (a
23
person’s privacy interest is highest when disclosure would reveal information collected about
24
them in conjunction with a criminal inquiry; protection from unwanted contact such as by
25
media entities and commercial solicitors “facilitated by disclosure of a connection to
26
government operations and investigations is a cognizable privacy interest[;] persons “retain
27
an interest in keeping private their involvement in investigations of especially controversial
28
-2-
1
events”); Hunt v. F.B.I., 972 F.2d 286, 289 (1992). The Court again finds the disclosure of
2
the names and identifying information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
3
privacy under 5 U.S.C. § 522(b)(6) and could reasonably be expected to constitute an
4
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7).
5
6
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
7
1.
The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 48) is ADOPTED.
8
2.
The Court finds Defendants have complied with their obligations under the
9
10
Freedom of Information Act and need not further redact the documents at issue.
3
The Court’s staff shall return the in camera documents (discussed in this Order
11
and the Court’s April 23, 2014, Order) and the emails between the magistrate judge and
12
Defendants’ counsel to counsel for Defendants. Counsel for Defendants shall retain the
13
documents for any appellate review.
14
15
16
4.
The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and shall then close its file in this
matter.
DATED this 3rd day of September, 2014.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
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?