Jud. Watch, Inc. v. DHS, No. 21-1194, 2023 WL 4234650 (D.D.C. June 28, 2023) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)

Jud. Watch, Inc. v. DHS, No. 21-1194, 2023 WL 4234650 (D.D.C. June 28, 2023) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning photos depicting dog bites suffered by Special Agent in Secret Service’s Presidential Protective Detail

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

• Exemption 7(C):  Regarding “[p]ictures showing the bites on [a] Special Agent’s leg . . . attached to an email” that defendant withheld, the court finds that “two privacy interests are at issue:  (1) the Special Agent’s interest in not being identified as the person who was bitten at work, and (2) the Special Agent’s interest in the photographs themselves, which show injuries to his or her body.”  “Plaintiff contends that the horse has been let out of the barn, so to speak, because some Secret Service and White House staff have since learned of the Special Agent’s identity.”  “But it is clear and conceded that these disclosures were not to the public at large.”  “Moreover, limited disclosure cuts against Plaintiff, because it would be marginally easier for members of the public generally to identify the Special Agent.”  “The Special Agent thus has demonstrated a privacy interest both in his or her identity and in the disclosure by photograph of parts of his or her body.”  The court then finds that “Plaintiff’s articulation of the public’s ‘significant’ interest in the photographs is not compelling.”  “The email description of the photographs relates ‘some bruising’ from the March 1 incident and ‘bruising and puncture to the skin’ from the March 8 incident.”  “These descriptions of the photographs already disclose the extent of the injuries, and they do not suggest that these are ‘apparently significant injuries that occur in the line of duty.’”  “Moreover, the relevant inquiry ‘should focus not on the general public interest in the subject matter of the FOIA request, but rather on the incremental value of the specific information being withheld.’”  “Nor does disclosure of the photographs add significant additional light to the public’s understanding of these minor incidents from more than two years ago.”  “Plaintiff’s mere recitation that disclosure would be significant does not ‘articulate a public interest sufficient to outweigh an individuals’ privacy interest.’”  “Plaintiff does not meet its burden in articulating why the photographs would address a significant public interest sufficient to outweigh the Special Agent’s privacy interest.”
  
  The court also finds that “Plaintiff also maintains that the ‘public interest in this matter is easily demonstrated by the media attention it has received’ and cites five media reports about the dog bites.”  “But the mere existence of media reporting on a minor news story of fleeting interest is not itself determinative.”  “The public interest is instead measured by whether disclosure ‘would shed light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties[ ] or otherwise let citizens know what their government is up to.’”  “It is the Court’s view that the prurient interest in viewing photographs of the Special Agent’s injuries does not implicate either the Secret Service’s performance of its statutory duties or shed light on what the government is ‘up to,’ but rather constitutes unwarranted invasion of privacy under Exemption 7(C).”