Guillen v. DHS, No. 20-1713, 2021 WL 4482985 (D. Minn. Sept. 30, 2021) (Davis, J.)

Guillen v. DHS, No. 20-1713, 2021 WL 4482985 (D. Minn. Sept. 30, 2021) (Davis, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning plaintiffs

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment

• Procedural Requirements, Time Limits & Litigation Considerations, Mootness and Other Grounds for Dismissal:  The court holds that "[i]f the agency fails to respond in a timely manner, the plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies and may file suit directly in federal court, which is what Plaintiffs have done here."  "No additional relief for ICE's slow response is available."  Thus, ["[plaintiff's] alleg[ation] that more than 30 business days had passed, and ICE had failed to provide a determination regarding whether it would comply with his referred FOIA request[,]" and therefore "that this failure 'violates 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i), as well as the regulations promulgated under FOIA"] is dismissed as moot."
   
• Waiver, and Discretionary Disclosure, Waiver:  The court relates that "Plaintiffs note that, on page 8 of the produced documents, ICE failed to redact a number of items it claims should be redacted."  "ICE's mistaken failure to redact the identifying information for the bond obligor and ICE employee on page 8 does not waive the employees' right to privacy in their personal information and has no bearing on the Court's analysis of the applicability of Exemptions 6 and 7(C)."
   
• Exemption 6; Exemption 7, Threshold; Exemption 7(C):  "Weighing the lack of public interest against the affected employees' privacy interest, the Court holds that Exemption 6 was properly applied, particularly because it was applied in conjunction with Exemption 7(C)."  Regarding Exemption 6, the court finds that "[e]mployees involved in law enforcement and other sensitive occupations possess a substantial privacy interest in their identities and work addresses."  Additionally, "'[l]ower level officials, like [ ] FBI agents [ ], generally have a stronger interest in personal privacy than do senior officials.'"  "The employees at issue in this case are all lower-level employees."  The court also notes that "Defendants submit the sworn declaration of [the] ICE Acting FOIA Officer . . . in which he avers that publicly disclosing the affected employees' personal information could subject them to harassment . . . , which is bolstered by various news articles from a variety of sources reporting ICE employees being harassed and targeted, including at their homes."  Regarding the public interest, the court finds that "[plaintiff's] only articulated interest in the names of the ICE and USCIS employees is so that he can contact them to interview or depose them in connection with his pending removal proceedings."  "This is [plaintiff's] personal interest, which fails to establish a valid public interest in knowing the redacted names and duty stations of ICE and USCIS employees in order to understand the operations or activities of the government."  "Such a use is an example of the 'derivative theory' of public interest, and actually facilitates the invasion of the employee's personal privacy."
  
  Regarding Exemption 7(C), the court first considers the Exemption 7 Threshold and finds that "[a]s a law enforcement agency, . . . ICE is entitled to the benefit of the Eighth Circuit's rule that FOIA Exemption 7 'extends to all investigative files' of law enforcement agencies without any need to consider 'the purpose of a particular investigation.'"  "Moreover, even if the Court did not consider ICE to be a law enforcement agency, the records at issue were compiled for law enforcement purposes because they were created in the course of an ICE investigation related to enforcement of federal immigration laws."  Regarding Exemption 7(C), the court then finds that "[a]s noted with respect to Exemption 6, revelation of the affected employees' names could expose them to harassment, as well as unwanted contact by Plaintiffs."  And "[a]s the Court explained with respect to Exemption 6, Plaintiffs have failed to articulate any public interest in the disclosure of the identities and duty stations of the individual ICE and USCIS employees who signed the redacted documents."  "This lack of public interest is balanced against the fact that, 'something, even a modest privacy interest, outweighs nothing every time.'"  "The Court concludes that pursuant to a combination of Exemptions 6 and 7(C), Defendants have established legitimate grounds for the redactions challenged by Plaintiffs."