Skip to main content

Corley v. DOJ, No. 19-5106, 2021 WL 2197725 (D.C. Cir. June 1, 2021) (Tatel, J.)

Date

Corley v. DOJ, No. 19-5106, 2021 WL 2197725 (D.C. Cir. June 1, 2021) (Tatel, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning requester's criminal prosecution

Disposition:  Affirming district court's grant of government's motion for summary judgment

  • Exemption 3:  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit relates that "amicus [appointed by the court to represent the requester] contends that the Child Victims’ Act does not qualify as an Exemption 3 withholding statute and that, in any event, it does not protect the documents in this case."  First, "[the court] agree[s] with the government that the Child Victims' Act unambiguously qualifies as an Exemption 3 statute."  "Stripped to its essence, the statute provides that 'all employees of the Government' involved in a particular case 'shall keep all documents that disclose the name or any other information concerning a child in a secure place' and disclose such documents 'only to persons who, by reason of their participation in the proceeding, have reason to know such information.'"  "This two-part requirement, that documents 'shall' be kept 'in a secure place' and disclosed 'only' to authorized personnel (as opposed to the general public) . . . clearly 'requires that . . . matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue' . . . ."  The court relates that "amicus contends that the Child Victims' Act does not qualify as an Exemption 3 withholding statute because 'it does not fully prohibit disclosure' as a result of subsection (d)(4), which states that the Act's privacy provisions '"do[ ] not prohibit disclosure . . . to,"' among others, '"the defendant."'"  The court finds that "Subsection (d)(4)'s exemption of 'disclosure . . . to the defendant' has nothing to do with the Exemption 3 analysis."  "[The requester] seeks these documents not as a criminal defendant under subsection (d)(4), but rather as a member of the public pursuant to FOIA."  The court relates that "[a]micus contends that the Act's privacy protections 'do not clearly require withholding of records once a criminal trial ends' because they apply only to those acting "in connection with a criminal proceeding."'"  "But one can act as the custodian of a record 'in connection with a criminal proceeding' long after the criminal proceeding has ended."  "Moreover, we seriously doubt that Congress intended that sensitive information become publicly available as soon as a criminal case ends."  Second, the court relates that, "[i]n the alternative, amicus argues that even if the Child Victims' Act’s privacy protections qualify as an Exemption 3 withholding statute, they do not apply to the documents at issue because [the requester's] victims are no longer minors."  The court finds that, "[t]he use of the word 'concerning' in relation to a document typically refers to the subject of the document; a document concerns a given subject if it is about that subject."  "And with respect to descriptions of the past, the subject can be described in terms that reflect the subject's previous state rather than its current state."  "[I]t would be odd to say that the photograph is of a child but no longer concerns a child."  "Interpreting 'concerning a child' to refer to the subject's age at the time of the offense accords with the statute's purpose, to protect minor victims' and witnesses' privacy." 
     
  • Procedural Requirements, Administrative Appeals:  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit relates that "the Office of Information Policy sent a letter rejecting what it called [the requester's] 'attempt[ ] to appeal from the action of the Mail Referral Unit (MRU) on [his] request for records concerning demographics of subjects charged with sex trafficking.'"  "It explained that 'Department of Justice Regulations provide for a Freedom of Information Act administrative appeal only after there has been an adverse determination by an identified component.'"  "And since 'MRU ha[d] no record of having received a FOIA request from [the requester]' nor 'did [the requester] identify any other component of the Department of Justice from whose action [he] might be appealing,' there was 'no action for th[e] Office to consider on appeal.'"  "Amicus argues that DOJ should have treated that appeal as a new FOIA request."  "But [the court holds that] amicus cites to no legal authority, nor [is the court] aware of any, imposing such a duty on DOJ."  "Indeed, just as a request must 'reasonably describe' the desired records, . . . a submission must be reasonably clear that its sender intends it to be a new request."
Court Decision Topic(s)
Court of Appeals opinions
Exemption 3
Procedural Requirements, Administrative Appeals
Updated June 29, 2021