Howard v. U.S., No. 18-0608, 2019 WL 1491787 (D.D.C. Apr. 4, 2019) (Chutkan, J.)

Howard v. U.S., No. 18-0608, 2019 WL 1491787 (D.D.C. Apr. 4, 2019) (Chutkan, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning alleged ATF agent's alleged misconduct

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Exemptions 6 & 7(C), Glomar:  "The court concludes that ATF's Glomar response was appropriate."  The court finds that "ATF adequately shows that the third party's privacy interests are significant."  The court explains that "an alleged government employee would have an 'interest in protecting the privacy of his employment records against public disclosure, whether the information contained in them is favorable or unfavorable . . . .'"  "Plaintiff might prevail if he could identify a public interest in releasing the information he seeks of such magnitude that it outweighs the privacy interests at stake."  "He fails to meet his burden, however, due to his failure to respond to Defendant's summary judgment motion."  The court further explains that "'[i]f an individual is the target of a FOIA request, the agency to which the FOIA request is submitted may provide a 'Glomar' response, that is, the agency may refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records or information responsive to the FOIA request on the ground that even acknowledging the existence of responsive records constitutes an unwarranted invasion of the targeted individual's personal privacy.'"