Havemann v. Colvin, No. 15-1294, 2015 WL 7423196 (4th Cir. Nov. 23, 2015) (per curiam)

Havemann v. Colvin, No. 15-1294, 2015 WL 7423196 (4th Cir. Nov. 23, 2015) (per curiam)

Re: Request for data concerning certain social security beneficiaries

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

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit holds that "[d]efendant has met its burden of showing that it performed an adequate search."  The court "find[s] that the evidence produced by the SSA appropriately outlined its search for responsive data."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration:  In response to plaintiff's arguments, the court "hold[s] that the district court correctly relied upon the SSA’s evidence in determining that the SSA had shown a risk of disclosure of personal information."  The court finds that "[plaintiff] fails to show what error occurred from considering evidence in [a related] previous case, or why the methodology and conclusions in the previous case cannot be applied in the present case, to the extent they are relevant."  Additionally, the court finds that "it is unclear who else could opine as to the methodology undertaken to respond to [plaintiff's] requests, and [plaintiff] has made no showing of bad faith."
   
• Exemption 6:  The court holds that "[d]efendant has met its burden of showing . . . that data has either been produced or is subject to withholding under Exemption 6."  The court finds that "the district court did not err in concluding that the public interest did not outweigh the privacy interests involved."  Regarding the public interest involved, the court finds that "it is undisputed that [plaintiff] would be unable to make any eligibility determinations for benefits based solely on data, because such a determinations require examination of many different and complicated variables including work issues, prior filings, and auxiliary benefits."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Relief:  In response to plaintiff's arguments, the court holds that "SSA’s delay, even if improper, cannot be a basis for disclosing personal information."  "Instead, the proper relief would be an injunction against future actions, relief that [plaintiff] has not requested."
   
• Procedural Requirements, Responding to FOIA Requests:  The court holds that "the district court did not err in rejecting" plaintiff's "request for a protective order that would reserve to the SSA the ability to make any actual contact with beneficiaries."  The court finds that "the Supreme Court has noted that '[t]here is no mechanism under FOIA for a protective order allowing only the requestor to see whether the information bears out his theory, or for proscribing its general dissemination.'"  "As such, any information that would permit [plaintiff] to locate potential beneficiaries would also permit anybody else who obtains the released information to locate these beneficiaries."  "Thus, even were [plaintiff] under a protective order not to contact them, an order could not prevent non-parties from using and disclosing the personal information involved."