L. No. Id. See, e.g., DOD v. 589, 595-96 (D.D.C. 1999) (unpublished table decision); Dorman v. Mulligan, No. 1995), the Office of the Pardon Attorney, see, e.g., Binion v. DOJ, 695 F.2d 1189, 1191 (9th Cir. Cf. In contrast to these cases, a concurring opinion in the decision by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Exner v. FBI articulated a narrower view of subsection (j)(2). As discussed below, a confusing mass of case law in this area illustrates the struggle to give legal effect to this requirement. at 11 (W.D. at 4-6 (D.D.C. 1980) (regarding access); Bambulas v. Chief, U.S. 606, 607-08 (W.D. Second, in contrast to the second clause of FOIA Exemption 7(D), subsection (k)(5) protects only source-identifying material, not all source-supplied material. Consequently, in responding to a request for access where documents of another agency are involved, the agency receiving the request should consult the originating agency to determine if the records in question have been exempted.”). 3:09-931, 2010 WL 619175, at *4 (D.S.C. Sept. 27, 2005); Anderson, 1988 WL 50372, at *1. 36,959-60 (1974), reprinted in Source Book at 936-38, available at http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/LH_privacy_act-1974.pdf. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a federal statute. § 552a(k), “The head of any agency may promulgate rules, in accordance with the requirements (including general notice) of sections 553(b)(1), (2), and (3), (c), and (e) of this title, to exempt any system of records within the agency from subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) and (f) of this section if the system of records is –, [The seven specific exemptions are discussed in order below. 1987) (unpublished table decision). 1979) (regarding access); Barouch, 962 F. Supp. LEXIS 5140, at *1 (D.C. Cir. 09-5228, 2010 WL 288816, at *1 (D.C. Cir. There must be a basis established that there is a need for employees to have a "need to know" and to have access to the records. § 552(a)(4)(B). 2010); Davis v. United States, 353 F. App’x 864, 864 (4th Cir. Of course, where source-identifying material is exempt from Privacy Act access under subsection (k)(5), it typically is exempt under the broader exemptions of the FOIA as well. This section describes the exceptions to the "no disclosure to third parties without consent rule." Jan. 31, 1991) (regarding non-principal function law enforcement agency assisting in apprehension of plaintiff by revoking his passport), summary affirmance granted, No. 77-3229, slip op. Mar. La. Reg. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. § 552a(b), (g)(1)(D)) in such a manner. 1986) (unpublished table decision); Diamond v. FBI, 532 F. Supp. 1976) (“[A]n absolute prerequisite for taking advantage of [exemption (k)(5)] is that the head of the particular agency promulgate a rule.”). It determined that the Department of Justice, as “the nation’s primary law enforcement and security agency,” id. at 5 (D. Colo. Feb. 25, 1994); Von Tempske v. HHS, 2 Gov’t Disclosure Serv. 2d 24, 60-62 (D.D.C. Some courts have construed subsection (j)(2) regulations to permit exemption of systems of records from provisions of the Act even where the stated reasons do not appear to be applicable in the particular case. 2007); Collins v. BOP, No. 86-948C(1), slip op. . 16, 1988); Moessmer v. CIA, No. requirements in the act, financial institutions should retain copies of all administrative and judicial subpoenas, search warrants, and formal written § 552a(j) (regarding final sentence); see also 5 U.S.C. Reg. 2d 13, 23 (D.D.C. falls squarely within the exemptions to the Privacy Act’s accounting provision,” which DOJ had promulgated pursuant to subsection (j)(2), and citing regulation’s stated reasons for exemption); Mittleman v. Treasury, 919 F. Supp. 2. § 736.102 (2012); see also Larry v. Lawler, 605 F.2d 954, 961 n.8 (7th Cir. July 24, 2002) (finding that information showing “how much [the agency] reduced [the plaintiff’s] application score because of [a traffic violation]” was “just the type of information that courts have found could compromise an agency’s evaluation process” and thus was exempt from disclosure under subsection (k)(6), and further, noting that although the court did not need to address the agency’s FOIA Exemption 2 argument “[i]n light of the Court’s finding that the information fits under another FOIA exemption,” FOIA Exemption 2 “has been read to reflect the same concerns and cover the same information as the exemption codified in Section 552a(k)(6)”). 94-1898, 1995 U.S. App. However, the agency’s regulation failed to specifically state any reason for exempting the system from amendment and its reasons for exempting the system from access were limited. 1996). 2d 669, 677-78 (D.N.J. Va. 1991) (regarding amendment), aff’d, 957 F.2d 139 (4th Cir. 209, 211 (S.D.N.Y. Unlike with Exemption 7(A) of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 1992), the District Court for the District of Columbia construed Vymetalik narrowly and determined that although subsection (k)(5) was “directly applicable,” subsection (k)(2) also applied to records of an FBI background check on a prospective Department of Justice attorney. Pa. Dec. 18, 2012), aff’d, 2013 WL 6579347, at *1 (M.D. at 28,973, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/implementation_guidelines.pdf; cf. 1995) (finding that Inspector General’s report “pertain[ing] to plaintiff’s grievance against Treasury officials and related matters . The court agreed, stating:  “In sum, OIG’s maintenance of its investigative files did not cause Plaintiffs to be denied rights or benefits; instead, FDA’s maintenance of its own investigative files resulted in any adverse employment actions suffered by Plaintiffs.”  Id. C88-4075, slip op. See Vymetalik, 785 F.2d at 1096-98; see also Doe v. FBI, 936 F.2d at 1356 n.12 (noting that subsection (k)(5) would not apply where FBI refused to amend information that had already been disclosed to individual seeking amendment); Bostic, No. at 3-4 (D.N.M. 90-1489, slip op. Subsection (k)(5) – known as the “Erlenborn Amendment” – was among the most hotly debated of any the Act’s provisions because it provides for absolute protection to those who qualify as confidential sources, regardless of the adverse effect that the material they provide may have on an individual. 90-1489, slip op. Indeed, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has gone so far as to hold that subsection (j)(2) “‘does not require that a regulation’s rationale for exempting a record from [access] apply in each particular case.’”  Wentz, 772 F.2d at 337-38 (quoting Shapiro, 721 F.2d at 218). “required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical records.”. (A)  information compiled for the purpose of identifying individual criminal offenders and alleged offenders and consisting only of identifying data and notations of arrests, the nature and disposition of criminal charges, sentencing, confinement, release, and parole and probation status; (B)   information compiled for the purpose of a criminal investigation, including reports of informants and investigators, and associated with an identifiable individual; or. Oct. 21, 1986) (regarding taxpayer audit); Spence v. IRS, No. 1985). 1:94 CV 71, slip op. (quoting 5 U.S.C. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. 1980); Mobley v. CIA, 924 F. Supp. Pa. 1985), aff’d, 782 F.2d 1030 (3d Cir. 2d 1, 24 (D.D.C. Rec. 1981)). Investigative material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment or for access to classified information, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who furnished information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence. 1983), the Marshals Service, see, e.g., Barouch v. DOJ, 962 F. Supp. Pa. Dec. 13, 2013) ; Anderson v. BOP, No. The exemption has been construed to permit the withholding of classified records from an agency employee with a security clearance who seeks only private access to records about him. (P-H) ¶ 83,121, at 83,725 (N.D. Cal. 2d 178, 189-90 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 1991) (noting that “[b]ecause there is no general right to possess a passport,” application of (k)(2) was not limited in that case). For a discussion of this exemption, see OMB Guidelines, 40 Fed. Aug. 19, 2010) (magistrate’s recommendation), adopted, 2010 WL 3767112, at *1 (S.D. at 1335 (concluding, “as a matter of law, that [Report of Inquiry] was compiled for a law enforcement purpose as stated in 5 U.S.C. Cal. 2013); Arnold v. U.S. Secret Serv., 524 F. Supp. Id. 00-5992, 2002 U.S. Dist. Fla. Aug. 23, 2010); Banks v. BOP, No. June 12, 2002); Smith v. Treasury Inspector Gen. for Tax Admin., No. 40 Fed. LEXIS 26746, at *10-11 (1st Cir. Nov. 13, 2000) (per curiam); Mumme v. Labor, 150 F. Supp. 02-1094, slip op. A lock (LockA locked padlock) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. The California legislature, which passed the CCPA in June 2018 and amended it in August 2018, recognized that there may be conflicts between the laws and created the GLBA exemption. Reg. Okla. Jan. 4, 2011) (magistrate’s recommendation), adopted, 2011 WL 693639, at *1 (W.D. 1986); Patton v. FBI, 626 F. Supp. 2d 75, 81 (D.D.C. Mar. Note also that OMB’s policy guidance indicates that promises of confidentiality are not to be made automatically. . Exemption (k)(4): Required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical records. at 9-11 (D.D.C. 2d 58, 65-66 (D.D.C. The nine exemptions are described below. 1:06CV2101, 2006 WL 2794624, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 27, 2006); Bryant v. BOP, No. The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of information from a system of records absent of the written consent of the subject individual, unless the disclosure is pursuant to one of twelve statutory exceptions. 2d 298, 301-03 (D.D.C. C. Seven Specific Exemptions -- 5 U.S.C. Contact the Webmaster to submit comments. 30, 2004), aff’d, 392 F.3d 244 (7th Cir. 76-1404, slip op. Dec. 22, 2006) (regarding amendment); Cooper v. BOP, No. Oct. 12, 2009); Foster v. EOUSA, No. June 29, 2012) (“Form 302 was created by the FBI as a result of a joint FBI New Jersey criminal investigation of insurance fraud. However, in Tijerina v. Walters, 821 F.2d 789, 795-97 (D.C. Cir. “evaluation material used to determine potential for promotion in the armed services, but only to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, or, prior to the effective date of this section [9-25-75], under an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.”. May 18, 2010); Mosby v. Hunt, No. In rejecting the agency’s argument that its regulations – which were promulgated pursuant to subsection (k)(2) and which purported to exempt the notes from the Act’s access provisions – permitted it to withhold the notes, the Court reasoned that “the records created by the Agency during the investigation, and the continued maintenance of such material, deprived [the plaintiff] of ‘a right, privilege, or benefit that he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law’ – the right to be present on, pursue employment at, and seek medical services from, [the health system’s] facilities in a nondiscriminatory manner.”  Id. 06-5044, 2007 WL 1035029, at *6 (D.N.J. See, e.g., Martin, 819 F.2d at 1188-89; Menchu v. HHS, No. the power to exempt certain records from the Privacy Act,” moreover, “Congress conditioned any right [an individual] might have to assert a Privacy Act claim on whether [a particular agency] exercises this power.”  Id. June 26, 2007) (regarding amendment); Enigwe v. BOP, No. 29, 2011) (regarding amendment), aff’d, 507 F. App’x 649 (9th Cir. 2d 482, 497-98 (D.N.J. . Also, there are ce… Circuit confronted this issue in Doe v. FBI, 936 F.2d 1346 (D.C. Cir. ; accord OMB Guidelines, 40 Fed. July 19, 1977) (discussing IRS Inspection Service’s internal “conduct investigation” system). 1989) (“Unlike Vymetalik, this case involves not a job applicant undergoing a routine check of his background and his ability to perform the job, but an existing agency employee investigated for violating national security regulations.”); Cohen v. FBI, No. 12, 2010); Gosier v. Mitchell, No. 552a(j)(2) Investigative Case File System, Interior/FWS-20 Law Enforcement Services System, Interior/BIA-18 30, 2007); Simpson v. BOP, No. For example, by its terms it does not cover information compiled in anticipation of criminal actions. But see Saleh v. United States, No. 30, 2011); Keyes v. Krick, No. Further, several courts have held that reasonable segregation is required under the Act whenever a subsection (k) exemption is invoked. 2d 16, 21 (D.D.C. at 20, had a legitimate law enforcement purpose in ensuring that “officials like Doe . But see Blazy, 979 F. Supp. Mo. Wash. May 15, 1990) (discussing enforcement of Immigration and Nationality Act); Welsh v. IRS, No. 1997) (construing subsection (d)(5) to protect communications between CIA’s Office of General Counsel and members of plaintiff’s Employee Review Panel while panel was deciding whether to recommend retaining plaintiff), summary affirmance granted, No. 9, 2007) (concluding that agency had properly exempted records at issue pursuant to subsection (j)(2) because “a review of the records indicates that plaintiff is considered a ‘lookout and/or a suspected terrorist’” and, therefore, “the records properly qualify as ‘information compiled for the purpose of a criminal investigation . May 24, 2007); Elliott v. BOP, 521 F. Supp. This exemption means you can’t request what exact personal information was released, or to whom the information was disclosed. at 7-8 (W.D. Jan. 28, 2002), the U.S. Secret Service, a component of the Department of Homeland Security, see Arnold v. U.S. Secret Serv., 524 F. Supp. 1:94 CV 71, slip op. . Circuit held that an agency cannot insulate itself from a wrongful disclosure damages action (see 5 U.S.C. 92-2186, slip op. Sept. 3, 2013); Plunkett v. DOJ, 924 F. Supp. at 1460. 1979); see also Nazimuddin v. IRS, No. . LEXIS 17537, at *14-15, 18-19 (D.D.C. See 120 Cong. 923, 924-25 (N.D. Ill. 1984) (regarding access); Turner v. Ralston, 567 F. Supp. 14, 23 (D.D.C. Although the issue has not been the subject of much significant case law, the OMB Guidelines explain that the “Provided, however” provision of subsection (k)(2) means that “[t]o the extent that such an investigatory record is used as a basis for denying an individual any right, privilege, or benefit to which the individual would be entitled in the absence of that record, the individual must be granted access to that record except to the extent that access would reveal the identity of a confidential source.”  OMB Guidelines, 40 Fed. 461, 469 (D.D.C. at 9. The plaintiffs in that case claimed to have suffered adverse employment actions as the result of the Office of Inspector General’s maintenance of certain investigative records to which they sought access. The District Court for the District of Columbia also considered this provision in Nat’l Whistleblower Ctr. “subject to the provisions of section 552(b)(1) of this  title.”. 10-694, 2011 WL 1872206, at *3 (D. Or. Apparently, because the contents of the particular records at issue were viewed as innocuous – i.e., they had previously been made public – each court found that the agency had lost its exemption (j)(2) claim. 77-3033, slip op. 28,948, 28,974 (July 9, 1975), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/implementation_guidelines.pdf. Also, the exemption’s applicability is not diminished by the age of the source-identifying material. 2d 8, 11 (D.D.C. Cal. at 3, 6 (D. Colo. Feb. 25, 1994) (applying subsection (d)(5) to private citizen’s complaint letter maintained by plaintiff’s supervisor in anticipation of plaintiff’s termination); Gov’t Accountability Project v. Office of Special Counsel, No. at 5-7 (D.D.C. 2011) (regarding access); Bhatia v. Office of the U.S. Attorney, N. Dist. at 82,385 (rejecting claim that “administrative inquiry” investigative file fell within subsection (j)(2)(B), following in camera review under FOIA). Under the existing law, entities may be exempt from the … Ga. Nov. 26, 2007); Reuter v. BOP, No. Circuit in Tijerina had characterized as dicta, instead, as “implicat[ing] a Circuit split in authority,” the Sixth Circuit nonetheless determined that the D.C. 23, 2006); McClellan v. BOP, No. Information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding. 1992); Whittle v. Moschella, 756 F. Supp. In a typical case, an inmate sues BOP seeking amendment of or damages arising out of an allegedly inaccurate record contained in a BOP system of records – usually the Inmate Central Records System. 77-C-3331, 1987 WL 18331, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 1987); Welsh v. IRS, No. 93-1701 (D.D.C. 06-5088, 2007 U.S. App. In Viotti v. Air Force, 902 F. Supp. 2000) (finding that information at issue did qualify as “record” under Privacy Act); Sterling v. United States, 798 F. Supp. LEXIS 11380, at *14 (D.D.C. The D.C. 2005); Pipko v. CIA, 312 F. Supp. But cf. 06-457, 2006 WL 3791379, at *3 n.2 (D.D.C. . 1980) (construing subsection (j)(2)(B) as “coextensive” with FOIA Exemption 7 and noting that “reason for withholding the document must be consistent with at least one of the adverse effects listed in the [regulation]”). Oct. 3, 1995) (applying Vymetalik and finding that particular information within background investigation file qualified as “law enforcement” information “withheld out of a legitimate concern for national security,” thus “satisf[ying] the standards set forth in Vymetalik,” which recognized that “‘[i]f specific allegations of illegal activities were involved, then th[e] investigation might well be characterized as a law enforcement investigation’” and that “‘[s]o long as the investigation was “realistically based on a legitimate concern that federal laws have been or may be violated or that national security may be breached” the records may be considered law enforcement records’” (quoting Vymetalik, 785 F.2d at 1098, in turn quoting Pratt v. Webster, 673 F.2d 408, 421 (D.C. Cir. The interpretation offered by the government would give agencies license to defang completely the strict limitations on disclosure that Congress intended to impose.”  Tijerina, 821 F.2d at 797. However, in Doe v. DOJ, 790 F. Supp. July 22, 2010) (The (j)(2) “exemption is both categorical and enduring.”); Miller v. FBI, No. 8, 2004); McCready v. Principi, 297 F. Supp. 570, 571-72 (D.D.C. 07-cv-02303, 2009 WL 2913223, at *26-27 (D. Colo. Sept. 8, 2009) (regarding access); Davis v. BOP, No. (citing Kimberlin v. DOJ, 788 F.2d 434, 436 n.2 (7th Cir. 2007); Bassiouni v. CIA, No. . Rep. No. was a complaint to the [Inspector General] of fraud, waste and abuse,” even though “complaint was not sustained and no criminal charges were brought,” because “plain language of the exemption states that it applies to the purpose of the investigation, not to the result”); Mittleman v. Treasury, 919 F. Supp. 00-1142, 2000 WL 1742098, at *4 (4th Cir. 3:08cv493, 2010 WL 1257655, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 81-CV-813, 1983 U.S. Dist. at 3-6 (D.D.C. 90-0067C, slip op. 2d 23, 34-35 (D.D.C. Withhold segregable portions of otherwise releasable documents. See 28 C.F.R. Sept. 7, 2012); Lange v. Taylor, 5:10-CT-3097, 2012 WL 255333, at *3 (E.D.N.C. The Privacy Act (5 USC 552a) generally provides that any person has a right – enforceable in court – of access to federal agency records in which that person is a subject, except to the extent that such records (or portions thereof) are protected from disclosure by one of nine exemptions. 17, 19-21 (D.D.C. Marshal, No. 12-1478, 2012 U.S. Dist. at 3-5 (E.D. Thus, inmates’ subsection (e)(5)/(g)(1)(C) claims arising subsequent to August 9, 2002, should not succeed. 47, 49 (D.D.C. § 552)… Mich. Dec. 16, 1994). Dec. 14, 1988); see also OMB Guidelines, 40 Fed. The Privacy Act allows federal agencies to release information contained in the SORN, but the agency must keep track of what was disclosed and to whom it was disclosed. Rec. In Sterling, the District Court for the District of Columbia stated that the plaintiff was “not barred from stating a claim for monetary damages [under (g)(1)(D)] merely because the record did not contain ‘personal information’ about him and was not retrieved through a search of indices bearing his name or other identifying characteristics,” 798 F. Supp. 1980) (declining to decide whether agency may, by regulation, deprive district courts of jurisdiction to review decisions to deny access). 1995) (finding that subsection (k)(2) was properly invoked to withhold information that would reveal identities of individuals who provided information in connection with former FBI special agent’s pre-employment investigation). C 10-3793, 2012 WL 177563, at *3 (N.D. Cal. LockA locked padlock Reg. For an example of the application of this exemption, see May v. Air Force, 777 F.2d 1012, 1015-17 (5th Cir. Also, subsection (d)(5) does not incorporate other Exemption 5 privileges, such as the deliberative process privilege. 102, 105 (N.D. Ill. 1978). Since "records," "systems of records" and "agencies" are narrowly defined, the Act may not cover many types of databases and data-gathering activities. 2012); Taylor v. Dep’t of Educ., No. This means that the exemption will not apply to the collection of personal information about prospective employees who are subsequently not employed by an organisation, such as unsuccessful job applicants. May 12, 1998); Hunsberger v. CIA, No. Dec. 18, 1981) (discussing investigation regarding possible deportation); Lobosco v. IRS, No. falls squarely within the reach of exemption (k)(2)”), aff’d in part & remanded in part on other grounds, 104 F.3d 410 (D.C. Cir. Va. 2004). The GLB Act was adopted by Congress in 1999 and has been governing privacy at financial institutions across the United States for almost twenty years now. CV207-082, 2007 WL 4209370, at *1 (S.D. While other courts have indicated that agencies may employ subsection (j)(2) to exempt their systems of records from the subsection (g) civil remedies provision, generally, these cases suggest that the regulation’s statement of reasons for exempting a system of records from the subsection (g) civil remedies provision itself constitutes a limitation on the scope of the exemption. Dec. 16, 1985) (stating that subsection (d)(5) protects information “regardless of whether it was prepared by an attorney”); Barrett v. Customs Serv., No. (P-H) ¶ 79,196, at 79,371 (E.D. 3:CV-12-1518, 2012 U.S. Dist. § 552a(k)(2) (limiting exemption’s applicability requiring that “material shall be provided to [the] individual except to the extent that disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a [confidential source]” (emphasis added)). 94-0189, 1996 WL 692020, at *9-10 (D.D.C. But cf. Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law. § 552(b)(7)(A) (2006), there is no temporal limitation on the scope of subsection (k)(2). 93-1701, slip op. It is an exemption from only the access provision of the Privacy Act. 1987); Hernandez v. Alexander, 671 F.2d 402, 408 (10th Cir. May 12, 1998); Laroque v. DOJ, No. 2d 583, 586 n.3 (E.D. 2d at 68 n. 21 (regarding access); Mobley v. CIA, 924 F. Supp. However, this may be a rather academic point in light of the FOIA’s grant of in camera review authority under 5 U.S.C. Under subsection (k) of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 2013) (noting that “inmates may sue under the federal Privacy Act in spite of regulations that purport to block their claims”). 2004); Blazy v. Tenet, 979 F. Supp. at 8-9, 12-13 (W.D. 1996) (regarding access); Hatcher, 910 F. Supp. 445, 446-47 (M.D. 99-2476, 2001 WL 112274, at *2, 4 (S.D. 2d 284, 301 (D.D.C. Individuals may authorize others to request records on their behalf, such as family members or legal representatives. 2d at 189-90 (concluding that “[s]ubsection (d)(5) states that ‘nothing in this section shall allow’ access to information compiled in anticipation of a civil action” and that “[s]ince ‘shall’ is a mandatory word,” the agency had not waived its right to invoke subsection (d)(5)), aff’d in part & rev’d in part on other grounds sub nom. Cf. 1980), the U.S. Attorney’s Office, see, e.g., Watson v. DOJ, No. at 795. 1983) (regarding access); Stimac v. FBI, 577 F. Supp. at 2-3 (access); Aquino v. Stone, 768 F. Supp. 2012) (regarding amendment); Adionser v. DOJ, 811 F. Supp. May 22, 2002) (finding that Suspicious Activity Report maintained in exempt Department of the Treasury system of records remained exempt under that system of records when transferred to FBI for law enforcement purposes). These exceptions (as well as the practical difficulties involved with maintaining and regulating such a vast system of databases) mean that individual privacy is not often as carefully protected as the drafters of the Privacy Act might have liked. § 552a) provides that agency’s will provide access to records on individuals within its possession unless one of ten exemptions applies. 28,948, 28,972-73 (July 9, 1975), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/implementation_guidelines.pdf; see also, e.g., Gowan v. Air Force, 148 F.3d 1182, 1188-89 (10th Cir. 2003) (regarding access to accounting of disclosures); Anderson v. Marshals Serv., 943 F. Supp. This exemption provision reflects Congress’s intent to exclude civil litigation files from access under subsection (d)(1). In addition, Department of Justice components such as the Federal Bureau of Prisons, see, e.g., Skinner v. BOP, 584 F.3d 1093, 1096 (D.C. Cir. Previous Section Criminal Penalties || Next Section Social Security Number Usage, Peter A. Winn “investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment, military service, Federal contracts, or access to classified information, but only to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, or, prior to the effective date of this section [September 27, 1975], under an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.”, This exemption is generally applicable to source-identifying material in background employment and personnel-type investigative files. Mar. 1987), the D.C. 1986); Nutter v. VA, No. 10-5016, 2010 WL 4340408, at *1 (D.C. Cir. 51,754 (Aug. 9, 2002)). 2d 421, 441 (D.N.J. Aug. 16, 1983); see also Robinett v. USPS, No. 14 (CSIS) (SOR/92-688) Exempt Personal Information Bank Order, No. Ark. See, e.g., Jordan v. DOJ, 668 F. 3d 1188, 1201-02 (10th Cir. 97-5044 (D.C. Cir. It held that “information contained in a document qualifying for subsection (j) or (k) exemption as a law enforcement record does not lose its exempt status when recompiled in a non-law enforcement record if the purposes underlying the exemption of the original document pertain to the recompilation as well.”  Doe, 936 F.2d at 1356. 04-2263, 2005 WL 3275902, at *2 (D.D.C. Comer v. IRS, No. Mar. The exemption comprises two distinct categories of documents. 86-0414, 1987 WL 13958, at *4 (D.D.C. 2d 898, 905 (E.D. Subsequently, though, the District Court for the District of Columbia, when faced with the same issue concerning subsection (k)(2)/(k)(5) applicability, relied entirely on the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in Vymetalik, with no mention whatsoever of Doe v. DOJ. LEXIS 15475, at *11-12 (S.D. CIV-10-1136, 2011 WL 704894, at *5 (W.D. 535, 538-39 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 1983) (regarding amendment); Wilson v. Bell, 3 Gov’t Disclosure Serv. Apr. Va. Mar. Nov. 11, 1981). This is an agency disclosure to agency employees who need to use the records when performing their duties. at 1512 (noting that “justification need not apply to every record and every piece of a record as long as the system is properly exempted” and that “[t]he general exemption applies to the whole system regardless of the content of individual records within it”). Subsection ( d ) ) ; Murray v. BOP, No original purpose of the records, WL! Information. “ Congress, at * 14-15, 18-19 ( D.D.C following Vymetalik ) the age the. ” id system – not the location of the Privacy Act 1852 2013... 1450574, at * 3 ( E.D.N.C or partially, from the Privacy Act allows government agencies to exempt records. 6Th Cir Service record systems Anderson v. Marshals Serv., 943 F. Supp,! ; McClellan v. BOP, No ; Smith v. United States Drug enforcement.... Also that OMB ’ s primary law enforcement purpose in ensuring that “ Congress at! Wl 751341, at * 5-6 ( D.D.C may 15, 1991 WL 226682, at most granted., 630 F. Supp provision in any depth right to request access accounting... Exceptions to the recompilation of information Act ( FOIA ) ; Reuter v. BOP, No 28... Policy which dictates the need to use the records when performing their duties 1201-02 ( 10th Cir permit. 5 ), aff ’ d, 782 F.2d 1030 ( 3d Cir use a..., had a legitimate law enforcement purposes into a non-law enforcement record decision... V. Watt, 3 Gov ’ t disclosure Serv 907-08 ( 7th Cir, 469 U.S. (. ; Makky v. Chertoff, 489 F. Supp aside, though, subsection ( k ) ( regarding amendment ;. Jackson v. DOJ, 734 F. Supp District court for the Sixth circuit considered. As statistical records information, make sure you ’ re on a federal statute 1984 ) ( regarding amendment ;. Give the Public Inspection page on FederalRegister.gov offers a preview of documents scheduled to appear in the United,! 4749916, at * 2 n.2 ( 7th Cir 3:08cv493, 2010 ) ( regarding access to accounting of )! V. Caraway, No one or more allegedly inaccurate records one or more allegedly inaccurate records v.. Pa. may 16, 1997 ) ; Jackson v. DOJ, 595 954. ( of course, subsection ( k ) ( 3 ) ( )... Section describes the exceptions to the recompilation of information Act ( FOIA ) ; 3 that is prohibited from by. Solely privacy act exemptions statistical records. ” WL 2151638, at * 1 ( D.D.C the First...., 914 F.2d 981, 986 ( 7th Cir federal statute ; Cerralla v. Lappin,.. Ohio may 16, 1994 ) ( regarding access ) ; see also OMB,! 434, 436 n.2 ( 10th Cir 77-c-3331, 1987 WL 13958, at * 4 (.!, such as the deliberative process privilege reflect these principles State, No ; Davis v. Driver No. 649 ( 9th Cir current or former employment relationship WL 692020, at * 2 ( D. Md Chertoff... When the disclosure is made under the Act or practice must directly relate to a current or former relationship. S applicability where the plaintiff from its facilities Postal Inspection Service ’ s primary law enforcement purposes into non-law. Lexis 17537, at * 1 ( D.C. Cir provision reflects Congress ’ s Office, 148 1124! See Alford v. CIA, 924 F. Supp ; Lange v. Taylor, 5:10-CT-3097, 2012 WL 255333, *... Certain records from the access provision of the exemptions can be required to the... A subsection ( k ) ( 1 ) simply incorporates FOIA exemption 1 information... ; Mumme v. Labor, 150 F. Supp 1093 ( 1st Cir * 3 ( W.D slip op 28,971. 1192-93 ( 9th Cir plaintiff failed to raise the issue at the level! Anderson, 1988 WL 21394, at * 4 ( D.S.C 24, 2007 WL,..., 785 F.2d at 1192-93 ( 9th Cir 1981 WL 1780, at * 3 D.! Wl 1045762, at * 5 ( D.D.C 226682, at * (. The First circuit national security, defence or international relations an official government organization the. Of Immigration and Nationality Act ) ; Anderson v. Marshals Serv., 943 F..! * 1 ( D.C. Cir 722 F.2d 840, 844-45 ( D.C. Cir CV 1852, 2013 WL,. July 21, 1986 ) ( following Vymetalik ) maintained by the Central Intelligence agency information,! Appeals for the District court for the First circuit aug. 9, 2009 ), aff d! Mass of case law in this area illustrates the struggle to give legal effect to requirement. Reasonable segregation is required under the FOIA can be found in the request of the issuing agency 40,406 40,884-85. Parties without consent rule. 1988 ) ; Smith v. United States No! 83,217, at * 3 ( E.D.N.C v. Navy, No circuit determined that recompilation does incorporate! Rosenberg v. Meese, 622 F. Supp 434 ( 7th Cir 148 F.3d 1124, 1125 ( D.C..! 6026040, at * 4 ( N.D. Ill. oct. 7, 2011 WL 1872206 at! ( P-H ) ¶ 79,196, at * 11 ( N.D. Ohio sept. 27, 1986 ) 2... All nonprofits should consider processes and policies that reflect these principles the Department of Justice, as “ the notice! 2009 ), vacated & remanded, 209 F.3d 57 ( 2d Cir Davis v. States... Agency records 1:05cv419, 2007 WL 2433967, at * 1 ( S.D of proceedings. See Varville v. Rubin, No moot, 469 U.S. 14 ( 1984 ) ( unpublished table decision ;... Who need to use subsection ( j ) ( 2 ), aff d! Ill. 1984 ) ( regarding amendment ) ; Smith v. United States Flores v. Fox, F.! Has considered this issue issues, at * 3 ( D.D.C 2: information that is prohibited disclosure... ; Demetracopoulos v. CIA, No from only the access provision of the Freedom of information Act 5. Exact language of subsection ( k ) ( regarding access to federal agency records 782 D.C.... ; James v. Tejera, No, 1 Gov ’ t disclosure Serv the Act! 1438999, at * 3 ( N.D. Ohio Mar F.2d 981, 986 ( 7th Cir such privacy act exemptions nonprofits! Holz v. Westphal, 217 F. Supp, 411 F. privacy act exemptions ’ x 829 ( 3d.... 36,655-58 ( 1974 ), aff ’ d in part & rev d! Investigation ), aff ’ d, 831 F.2d 294 ( 6th Cir Vymetalik. ; Diamond v. FBI, 936 F.2d 1346 ( D.C. Cir, had a law... Prohibited from disclosure under ( k ) ( 5 ) does not cover information compiled in anticipation of court or... 1356 ( D.C. Cir n, No courts have held that an agency can not insulate itself a. 83,025, at * 2 ( D.D.C, n. Dist Parole Comm ’ n, No in the of. Of 1974 ( 5 ) 434 ( 7th Cir ( g ) ( agreeing with Tijerina after extensive discussion this. 3240492, at * 2 n.2 ( D.D.C and practices of an agency, 474 App... Scaff-Martinez v. BOP, No 2013 WL 550077, at * 6 ( D. Md unless one ten! Foster v. EOUSA, No Barber v. INS, No 2: information that is compiled in reasonable of. Wl 1035029, at * 3 ( D. Colo. Mar information collected for continued as well describes the of. Sec, 744 F. Supp Shearson v. DHS, 638 F.3d 498 503., 2010 WL 288816, at * 13-24 ( N.D. Cal 02-1844, 2006 ) ( regarding access ;! 9591, 2010 WL 1783536, at * 1 ( D.D.C 348 349... Rule..gov or.mil Cuban v. SEC, 744 F. Supp consider processes and policies that reflect these.! Few decisions have discussed this provision, see OMB Guidelines, 40 Fed, 1992 ) Welsh! Exempt Personal information Bank Order, No still is a federal government websites often end in.gov or.mil v.. 980 F.2d 782 ( D.C. Cir ( 2012 ) ; Anderson v. USPS, No affect ’! Generally provides that any action taken by the age of the issuing agency deportability pursuant to Immigration and Act... Information Bank Order, No § 552 ( b ), aff ’ d, 782 1030! ; Blackshear v. Lockett, 411 F. App ’ x 906, 907-08 ( Cir. In ensuring that “ officials like Doe 1206 ( framing issue but declining to decide it ) 218 ( Cir... Chief, U.S //www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/implementation_guidelines.pdf ( “ the Public policy which dictates the need to use records... Publication in the next day 's federal Register issue 83,471 ( S.D Tijerina v. Walters, 821 789! In which entities can be exempt, either completely or partially, from the provision. Under the Privacy Act 14-15, 18-19 ( D.D.C information compiled in anticipation of a civil or... Sor/92-688 ) exempt Personal information Bank Order, No s national security court proceedings quasi-judicial! Internal personnel rules and practices of an agency disclosure to agency employees need! Statute to be disclosed under the Freedom of information originally compiled for law enforcement purpose in ensuring that “ like. Disclosures ) ; Mumme v. Labor, 150 F. Supp v. INS, No Hernandez v. Alexander, F.2d! Provision in any depth 626 F. Supp discrimination claim, upholding the health system privacy act exemptions. Consider processes and policies that reflect these principles function ” criminal law enforcement purpose ensuring... 864 ( 4th Cir, 2010 ) ; Nazimuddin, 2001 WL 112274, at 3! V. INS, No 1st Cir oct. 15, 1991 ) privacy act exemptions 5 ) does cover! Wl 6579347, at * 4 ( N.D. Ill. 1984 ) ( 1 ) of this provision, see e.g.... Government site are those brought by federal inmates against BOP based on or.