The New York Times Company v. United States Department of Justice

Background

The New York Times Company and Mara Hvistendahl brought a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action challenging the Department of Justice’s refusal to disclose information from a 37-page Office of the Inspector General report. The report concerned allegations that FBI officials committed misconduct overseas, including soliciting, procuring, or accepting commercial sex in violation of DOJ and FBI policies, and that officials lacked candor or made false statements during the investigation.

DOJ initially released two partially redacted pages and withheld the rest under FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(A), 7(C), and 7(E). After the case began, DOJ determined that Exemption 7(A) no longer applied and produced the report with some information still redacted under Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E). The parties’ remaining dispute concerned four categories: the locations of the misconduct; the years of related events; direct quotations, including interview statements; and descriptions of unsubstantiated allegations and why the Office of the Inspector General found them unsupported.

Legal standard

The court considered the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Under that standard, judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In a FOIA case, the government bears the burden of showing that a claimed exemption applies to the withheld information.

The court analyzed the disputed information under Exemption 7(C), which protects personal privacy in records compiled for law-enforcement purposes. The parties did not dispute that the report qualified as a similar file under Exemption 6 or was compiled for law-enforcement purposes under Exemption 7(C). Because Exemption 7(C) provides greater privacy protection, the court evaluated the information under that exemption alone.

Categories 1–3: locations, dates, and quotations

The court found that the officials discussed in the report had a privacy interest in avoiding identification. The report described serious and embarrassing misconduct, and six subjects were former government employees. The court also accepted DOJ’s explanation that people familiar with the FBI’s operations, the officials, the misconduct, or the investigation could combine the report’s existing details with the locations, years, or quotations to identify the subjects. The court therefore found a privacy interest in the first three categories.

The plaintiffs identified a significant public interest in government accountability and transparency. They argued that locations would show whether the misconduct was widespread, dates would help the public evaluate the timing and handling of the misconduct and investigation, and quotations would allow the public to assess the evidentiary basis and rigor of the report’s findings.

The court held that the plaintiffs showed the requested information was likely to advance that public interest. DOJ relied on statements that the information would not meaningfully add to public understanding, but the court found those assertions conclusory. Because conclusory assertions were insufficient and doubts about a FOIA exemption were resolved in favor of disclosure, the court held that the locations, years, and direct quotations fell outside Exemption 7(C).

Category 4: unsubstantiated allegations

The court reached a different result for descriptions of unsubstantiated allegations and the reasons the Office of the Inspector General found them unsupported. The subjects had a privacy interest in protecting their reputations from association with allegations that were not substantiated. The court found that the public interest in examining the investigation would receive no weight without evidence of material impropriety by the Office of the Inspector General. Because the plaintiffs offered no such evidence, the court denied their request for this information.

Disposition

The court stated that the parties’ summary-judgment motions were granted in part and denied in part. DOJ was ordered to provide the plaintiffs, by March 31, 2025, a copy of the report containing the countries and cities where the misconduct occurred, the years when it occurred, and the direct quotations from Office of the Inspector General interviews. The court denied disclosure of the unsubstantiated allegations and the reasons they were found unsupported. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions and close the case.