Wadhwa v. VA, No. 17-1686, 2017 WL 4022536 (3d Cir. Sept. 13, 2017) (per curiam)

Wadhwa v. VA, No. 17-1686, 2017 WL 4022536 (3d Cir. Sept. 13, 2017) (per curiam)

Re:  Request for records concerning complaints of employment discrimination

Disposition:  Affirming government's motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege:  The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit relates that "the VA explained that it used Exemption 5 to withhold a draft final agency decision, as well as 'e-mails, letters, and other documents from and between staff members[.]'"  "According to the VA, this material was generated within the agency as part of a 'deliberative, pre-decisional process.'"  "This description provided a sufficient factual basis for the District Court's determination that the agency properly invoked Exemption 5, and [the court] hold[s] that the District Court's conclusion was not clearly erroneous."  "Indeed, draft reports and internal communications generated as part of agency decisionmaking may be properly withheld pursuant to Exemption 5."
   
• Exemption 6:  The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit relates that "the VA withheld names, phone numbers, email addresses, and other identifying information concerning individuals, including complainants and witnesses, who were involved in adjudications of discrimination complaints."  "In addition, the VA cited Exemption 6 in withholding individuals' financial information, such as bank account numbers, deposit slips, copies of cleared checks, and pay statements."  "This information implicates more than de minimis privacy interests," and, therefore the court finds that, "in the absence of any public interest in disclosure, the District Court properly held that the VA's invocation of Exemption 6 was proper."
   
• Exemption 6, Glomar:  The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit holds that "[t]he VA also properly refused to confirm or deny the existence of employee disciplinary records."  The court relates that "[the requester] requested records concerning the 'removal' of two VA doctors."  The court finds that "[g]iven [the requester's] failure to identify any public interest in disclosure, even acknowledging the existence of misconduct or disciplinary records here would cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
   
• Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection:  The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit holds that "[t]he declarations were sufficiently detailed, and [the requester] has not adequately demonstrated why in camera review was required."