Hum. Rts. Def. Ctr. v. U.S. Park Police, No. 19-1502, 2023 WL 5561602 (D.D.C. Aug. 29, 2023) (Chutkan, J.)

Hum. Rts. Def. Ctr. v. U.S. Park Police, No. 19-1502, 2023 WL 5561602 (D.D.C. Aug. 29, 2023) (Chutkan, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning certain lawsuits brought against defendant

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 6:  The court relates that “[it] must decide whether, under Exemption 6, the government may redact the identities of claimants and police officers in three tort claims:  1) an assault by a Park Police sergeant on a visitor to the Lincoln Memorial, which resulted in a $17,500 settlement; 2) a Park Police SWAT team’s forcible entry into a residence, which resulted in a $13,500 settlement; and 3) the ejection of a member of the public from a D.C. Taxicab Commission meeting, which resulted in a $15,000 settlement.”  The court finds that “the threshold inquiry is satisfied because Park Police seeks to withhold the names of claimants and police officers involved in three settlements.”  “It is also clear that both the claimants and officers possess a privacy interest in their identities.”  “Park Police argues that disclosing the names would constitute ‘an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy’ for both claimants and officers because of the nature of the tort claims, all of which appear to involve officers using force on private citizens.”  “They contend that disclosing the claimants’ names could result in embarrassment, harassment, and undue public attention.”  “While Park Police does not explain how these potential threats to privacy are ‘more palpable than mere possibilities,’ . . . the court acknowledges that there well may be some members of the public who seek to harm and/or harass those who bring claims against police officers.”  “Likewise, Park Police argues that disclosing the accused officers’ names could also result in threats to their personal privacy but does not explain how these threats are ‘more palpable than mere possibilities.’”  “However, the court acknowledges that the allegations against the officers were never proven in a judicial proceeding, and that disclosing their names may lead the public to infer that the officers engaged in wrongdoing, which could result in retaliation, embarrassment, harassment, and undue public attention.”  “Consequently, in applying the balancing test, the court will assume that disclosure of both the claimants’ and officers’ names would be an invasion of personal privacy.”  “The court finds that the claimants’ privacy interest in protecting their identities outweighs the alleged public interest because disclosing the names would reveal little or nothing about Park Police’s conduct and would not assist the public in better understanding the workings of the agency.”  “[T]he court concludes that the officers’ privacy interest in protecting their identities outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure, which would reveal little more about Park Police’s conduct than what has already been disclosed and would not assist the public in better understanding the workings of the agency.”
   
• ​​​​​​​Waiver and Discretionary Disclosure, Waiver:  Additionally, the court relates that “Park Police claims it inadvertently disclosed the names of two claimants and seeks to claw back the names, demanding that [plaintiff] return and not disseminate documents containing the names.”  The court finds that “FOIA does not provide for the compelled return or destruction of inadvertently produced documents.”  “‘Nevertheless, federal courts have long “understood that certain implied powers must necessarily result to our Courts of justice from the very nature of their institution,” which “are governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”’”  “Courts have used that implied power to bar dissemination of information inadvertently disclosed in FOIA proceedings, especially if the information is covered by an exemption.”  “A federal court’s implied power remains ‘limited by the necessity giving rise to its exercise,’ however, and its use must be ‘a reasonable response to the problems and needs that provoke it.’”  “As discussed previously, the claimants’ names are covered by Exemption 6, and there is no discernible public interest in having the names of private citizens disclosed.”  “Accordingly, the court will use its implied powers . . . to order [plaintiff] not to disclose, disseminate, or make use of the claimants’ names.