White Arnold & Dowd P.C. v. DOJ, No. 15-00837, 2017 WL 2405104 (N.D. Ala. June 2, 2017) (Proctor, J.)

White Arnold & Dowd P.C. v. DOJ, No. 15-00837, 2017 WL 2405104 (N.D. Ala. June 2, 2017) (Proctor, J.)

Re:  Request to Office of Professional Responsibility for complaints made against former AUSA

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for Vaughn index, motion for in camera inspection, and cross-motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 6 & 7(C), Glomar:  "The court finds that disclosure of the existence or non-existence of responsive records would constitute an unwarranted invasion of [the former AUSA's] personal privacy."  The court explains that, "[w]ithout question, the documents requested in Plaintiff's FOIA request fall squarely within Exemption 6."  "The balance of [the former AUSA's] substantial private interests and the negligible public interest in alleged misconduct by one line-level AUSA weighs substantially in favor of the OPR's Glomar response."  Similarly, the court finds that "Plaintiff has failed to establish a cognizable public interest."  "And [the former AUSA] has a significant privacy interest in the information requested."  Therefore, "OPR's Glomar response was proper under Exemption 7(C)."  "Disclosure of responsive records could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of [the former AUSA's] personal privacy."  Finally, the court finds that "[p]laintiff's evidence and arguments that information regarding [the former AUSA's] alleged misconduct is in the public domain falls short of satisfying the public domain exception/official-acknowledgment doctrine."  "Plaintiff has not presented the court with any evidence that OPM has officially and publicly disclosed the existence or non-existence of complaints about [the former AUSA]."