Eddington v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 19-2794, 2025 WL 928585 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2025) (Contreras, J.)

Eddington v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 19-2794, 2025 WL 928585 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2025) (Contreras, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning U.S. citizen who was detained by Kenyan and Ethiopian authorities for more than four months during 2007

Disposition:  Granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment; granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 6:  Regarding the privacy interests, the court relates that “[t]he Department of State argues that it has carried its burden to demonstrate that [the subject] has a privacy interest in the information contained within the records, as they relate to his familial relations, health, finances, and conditions of detention.”  “The Court finds that [the subject] and others have an enduring privacy interest in the information contained in the cables.”  “It is true, as [plaintiff] argues, that [the subject’s] federal complaint sharing his experience in foreign detention is readily available.” “Yet the Court’s in camera review confirms the Department of State’s assertion that ‘the information redacted and the information in [the subject’s] complaint are not one and the same.’”  “[The subject’s] choice to reveal some information during litigation does not vitiate his right to privacy regarding the remaining information.” “In addition, [plaintiff] is incorrect that [the subject] wholly ‘lacks a privacy interest’ in information he has shared elsewhere.”  However, the court finds that “[the subject’s] privacy interest is potentially reduced regarding information he made public in his federal complaint, while his privacy interest in non-public information within the records remains fully intact.”
  
  Regarding the public interests, the court finds that “[plaintiff] [states] that ‘the records would expand the public’s understanding of State’s failure to help [the subject] despite his claims’ of mistreatment . . . and that ‘the cables would likely illuminate whether and when State was aware of possible FBI involvement in [the subject’s] detention and how it reacted to learning those allegations[]’ . . . .”  “He additionally suggests that ‘the public has a strong interest in understanding how State investigates U.S. citizens’ allegations of mistreatment while they are detained abroad.’”  “Following its own in camera review, the Court agrees with the Department of State that most of the information in the cables lacks a relevant nexus to the public interest.”  “As explained in the Vaughn index, the cables largely detail [the subject’s] experience during foreign detention, his familial status, and his financial information.” “This information does not reveal the ‘operations or activities of the government.’”  “Nor does it shed light on the Department of State’s ‘performance of its statutory duties.’”  “As [the subject] retains a privacy interest in this information, and there is no public interest in its disclosure, the Department of State properly applied Exemption 6 to most of the paragraphs in the records.”  “The Court identifies six paragraphs of the Nairobi Cable, however, that do further the public’s understanding of the ‘operations or activities of the government.’”  “Paragraph 1 provides a summary discussing FBI and other officials’ contact with [the subject], while paragraphs 2 and 7 describe consular officials’ efforts to locate him.”  “Paragraphs 6, 8, and 9 recount the embassy officials’ protest to Kenyan authorities regarding deportation of U.S. citizens to Somalia, [the subject’s] later transfer to Ethiopia, and the officials’ protest regarding lack of notification about [the subject’s] arrest.”  “These paragraphs demonstrate the Department of State’s ‘performance of its statutory duties.’”  “These paragraphs do contain at least some information regarding [the subject’s] detention, but the details can also be found in [the subject’s] publicly available complaint.”  “He thus has a reduced privacy interest in those facts.”  “In contrast, the Court finds a substantial public interest in the Department of State’s actions responding to his detention.”  “The Court therefore finds that this invasion of [the subject’s] personal privacy is not ‘unwarranted,’ much less clearly so.”
  
  Finally, “[t]he Court . . . finds that the Department of State has shown that disclosure of the remaining paragraphs would foreseeably harm an interest protected by Exemption 6.”  “The Court established above that [the subject] has a privacy interest in the records at issue in this litigation, which has not been forfeited by his decision to publicly reveal some information in his Bivens lawsuit.”  “As the Department of State described in its Vaughn Index and declaration, and as the Court has confirmed, the redacted information is personal in nature and relates to a particular individual’s travel, detention, and repatriation experience.” “Disclosure of those paragraphs within the records would inevitably harm [the subject’s] privacy interest, as well as those of his family members mentioned within the documents, by making the information public.”
   
• Litigation Considerations, Evidentiary Showing, “Reasonably Segregable Showing”:  “The Court has identified six paragraphs in the Nairobi Cable that may be reasonably segregated from [the subject’s] exempted personal information.”  “The Department of State may additionally redact the parenthetical in paragraph 2 relaying [the subject’s] place and date of birth, as well as the last sentence of paragraph 7 discussing [the subject’s] family members.”  “The remaining parts of the two records relay [the subject’s] personal information, and based on its in camera review the Court finds no ‘non-exempt portions’ to disclose.”  “The agency has thus carried out its segregability obligations regarding the material that may remain redacted within the records.”