Polidi v. Mendel, No. 22-00925, 2023 WL 5673116 (E.D. Va. Sept. 1, 2023) (Tolliver Giles, J.)

Polidi v. Mendel, No. 22-00925, 2023 WL 5673116 (E.D. Va. Sept. 1, 2023) (Tolliver Giles, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning investigation into and disciplinary records concerning plaintiff

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 6; Exemption 7(C):  “The Court finds that the application of both Exemptions was justified here.”  Regarding Exemption 6, “[t]he Court finds the USPTO has demonstrated that the files at issue are of the type considered by [Exemption 6].”  “According to [defendant] the documents identified as responsive to Plaintiff’s request were documents originating from disciplinary proceedings by the North Carolina State Bar against Plaintiff.”  “The Court finds the individuals’ privacy interests here are substantial and outweigh the public interest in disclosure.”  “The redactions here protected the identity and medical information of the victim of Plaintiff’s alleged misconduct, as well as that of her family.”  “Disclosure of such information would reveal little to nothing about the USPTO’s conduct, or the way in which the USPTO investigates alleged misconduct by practitioners.”  “For that reason, the Court finds the individuals’ privacy interests here vastly outweigh any public interest in disclosure of the aforementioned information.”  “Thus, the personal information about the alleged victim and her family was appropriately withheld by the USPTO pursuant to Exemption 6.”  “Likewise, the Court finds no public interest in the disclosure of the names and contact information of government employees involved in the investigation into Plaintiff’s alleged misconduct.”  “Accordingly, the Court finds that personal information about the government employees involved in Plaintiff’s investigation was appropriately withheld by the USPTO pursuant to Exemption 7(C).”

• Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege & Attorney Work-Product Privilege:  The court finds that “[t]he USPTO contends that it ‘applied minimal redactions . . . to shield the mental impressions of an attorney associated with the North Carolina State Bar regarding that entity’s investigation of allegations of misconduct against [P]laintiff.’”  “[Defendant] further explains that ‘the USPTO affixed redactions to protect information related to the mental impressions associated with the North Carolina State Bar in anticipation of disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to . . . the exemption for attorney work product.’”  “Defendant further posits that the redacted information ‘was both (1) prepared by an attorney and (2) prepared in anticipation of potential administrative or judicial litigation into those allegations of misconduct against [P]laintiff.’”  “Given these representations, the Court finds that the USPTO has met its burden in demonstrating that the withheld information, created in the course of a disciplinary proceeding against Plaintiff, was both predecisional and deliberative.”  “Thus, the USPTO was justified in redacting this information pursuant to Exemption 5.”
   
• Litigation Considerations, “Reasonable Segregable” Requirements:  “The Court finds that the USPTO disclosed all reasonably segregable information to Plaintiff.”  “The Court finds that [defendant’s] Declaration ‘fairly describes the content of the material withheld and adequately states its grounds for nondisclosure,’ and that ‘those grounds are reasonable and consistent with the applicable law[.]’”