Muchnick v. DHS, No. 15-3060, 2016 WL 7101507 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2016) (Breyer, J.)

Muchnick v. DHS, No. 15-3060, 2016 WL 7101507 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2016) (Breyer, J.)

Re: Request for immigration information concerning former Irish Olympic swim team coach

Disposition: Granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 6 & Exemption 7, Threshold: The court holds that "[t]he phrase 'similar files' . . . covers 'files containing citizenship information on specific individuals,' like the A-File at issue here." Additionally, the court finds that "there can be no doubt that DHS compiled [the swim team coach's] A-File for legitimate law enforcement and adjudicative purposes."
   
• Exemption 7(C): The court finds that "DHS may not withhold under Exemption 6 or 7(C) portions of documents merely reciting criminal allegations against [the swim team coach]." The court explains that "[the swim team coach] has 'no privacy interests' in preventing disclosure of the widely known allegations swirling around him." "And without a privacy interest, there can be no invasion of personal privacy, let alone an unwarranted one." "That said, the public does not have easy access to information about [the swim team coach's] past addresses, salary history, and – most relevant here – immigration decisions made by DHS." "[The swim team coach] retains a privacy interest in such information." Regarding the public interest, the court finds that "the public has a strong interest in understanding how and why their government allowed a man with a far-worse-than-checkered past (and perhaps present) to stay here for more than two decades."
   
• Exemption 7(E): The court finds that, "[a]s an initial matter, DHS has properly redacted documents that reveal the databases USCIS uses, 'coded information,' 'biometric checks,' and other technical information." "Those are law enforcement 'techniques' under Exemption 7(E)." "The real fight here is whether DHS must disclose what those 'techniques' revealed, namely the sexual abuse accusations." The court finds that "[s]o long as DHS redacts how it obtained information about [the swim team coach], disclosing what it found out would not disclose a law enforcement technique, procedure, or guideline." "That is all the more true given that the allegations here are no secret."