Bloomgarden v. NARA, No. 18-5347, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8201 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 13, 2020) (per curiam)

Bloomgarden v. NARA, No. 18-5347, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8201 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 13, 2020) (per curiam)

Re:  Request for records concerning termination of Assistant U.S. Attorney who participated in federal-state investigation that led to requester's conviction

Disposition:  Affirming in part and reversing in part district court's grant of government's motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 6:  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit "affirm[s] the judgment of the district court as to ["the final decision letter to the AUSA from DOJ on the 'proposed discipline letter'"] but reverses as to ["a letter from the AUSA following receipt of the final decision letter"]."  First, the court notes that "[the requester] does not appear to contest that the [final decision] Letter and AUSA Response are '"personnel" files that satisfy the threshold requirement of Exemption 6' . . . ."  Second, the court finds that "[b]ecause the Archives offers no viable reason why the AUSA (or anyone else) has a substantial privacy interest in the AUSA Response, 'FOIA demands disclosure' regardless whether the public has any identified interest in the letter's contents."  The court relates that "[t]he Archives contends only that the AUSA Response should remain private because it 'discusses the grounds for the former AUSA's removal.'"  "We reviewed both letters in camera, as did the district court, and we see no such discussion in the AUSA Response."  "Turning to the [final decision] Letter and the balancing of public and private interests," the court finds that "[t]he privacy interest is still significant:  The AUSA, who left DOJ decades ago, continues work as 'a practicing lawyer who would undoubtedly be quite embarrassed by disclosure' of detailed recitations of 'garden-variety incompetence and insubordination' from 'many years ago.'"  "And any countervailing public interest remains low:  The [final decision] Letter 'is over twenty years old,' addresses a junior, line-level prosecutor, 'does not necessarily reveal anything of present personnel policies, and as a piece of history . . . is hardly momentous.'"  "[The court] conclude[s] from [its] own in camera review that the [final decision] Letter's findings do not identify any prosecutorial misconduct affecting the merits of any case or otherwise threatening the integrity of the prosecutorial function, but are limited to instances of incompetence and insubordination."