Jud. Watch, Inc. v. DHS, No. 21-2824, 2023 WL 4234659 (D.D.C. June 28, 2023) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)

Jud. Watch, Inc. v. DHS, No. 21-2824, 2023 WL 4234659 (D.D.C. June 28, 2023) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)

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

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

• Exemption 7(C):  Regarding the privacy interests at issue, the court finds that “[a] law enforcement officer’s identity often implicates a privacy interest in FOIA cases.”  “Here, two privacy interests are at issue:  (1) the Special Agents’ interests in not being identified as the people who were bitten at work, and (2) the Special Agents’ interests in the photographs themselves, which show injuries to their bodies.”  “Plaintiff counters that these privacy interests are eroded because it is ‘already likely well known among Secret Service personnel as to who has been injured’ given that some of the photographs were sent to the email lists for the Secret Service’s Presidential Protective Division and the officers in the Uniformed Division, White House Branch.”  “Not only do not all Secret Service Agents or White House employees know the identity of the injured Special Agents, but limited disclosure also cuts against Plaintiff, because it would be marginally easier for members of the public generally to identify the Special Agent.”
  
  Regarding the public interests at issue, the court finds that “Plaintiff's articulation of the public’s significant interest in the photographs is not compelling.”  “Released emails contain descriptions of the incidents, which disclose the extent of the injuries sustained.”  “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.’”  “As such, Plaintiff does not meet its burden in articulating why the photographs would address a significant public interest sufficient to outweigh the Special Agents’ privacy interests.”  “Plaintiff also maintains that the ‘public interest in this matter is easily demonstrated by the media attention it has received’ and cites six 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.”  “It is the Court’s view that the prurient interest in viewing photographs of the Special Agents’ 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 [an] unwarranted invasion of privacy under Exemption 7(C).”