Marc Cohodes v. United States Department of Justice
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:20-cv-04015
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Marc Cohodes v. DOJ, Judge Beeler ordered the government to disclose information it withheld under Freedom of Information Act privacy exemptions.
Marc Cohodes and the United States Department of Justice and other defendants; the order requires the government to disclose the specified redacted information.
What happened
Marc Cohodes v. United States Department of Justice concerned Cohodes’s request for unredacted versions of four government documents. The documents included an anonymous sender’s name, a person’s name and email address, witness names, and an email address connected to an offer of information about Cohodes.
The government relied on Freedom of Information Act Exemptions 6 and 7(C), which protect personal privacy in certain government records. The court found no sufficient privacy interest supporting the redactions and concluded that, even if one existed, the public interest in disclosure outweighed it.
Judge Laurel Beeler ordered the government to produce the documents with all five categories of redacted information disclosed, including the names of five witnesses and two email-related identities or addresses.
The detailed version
- Marc Cohodes v. United States Department of Justice · No. 3:20-cv-04015
- Laurel Beeler
- May 23, 2024
Background
Marc Cohodes asked the government to produce unredacted versions of four documents. The requested information consisted of: (1) the name of the “MDXG Friend” who sent an anonymous email; (2) the name and email address of the person who forwarded that email to the Federal Bureau of Investigation; (3) the names of three witnesses interviewed in January 2018; (4) the names of two witnesses interviewed in February 2018; and (5) the email address of a person who offered information about Cohodes in exchange for Bitcoin.
The government withheld the information under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Exemptions 6 and 7(C). Exemption 6 covers certain personal information in personnel, medical, and similar files when disclosure would clearly and improperly invade privacy. Exemption 7(C) covers personal information in law-enforcement records when disclosure could reasonably be expected to invade privacy.
Analysis
The court rejected the government’s reliance on both exemptions. For the two emails, the government did not explain why the emails were similar to personnel or medical files for purposes of Exemption 6. The court also found that the government had not shown that disclosure would create the type of privacy invasion protected by either exemption. It noted that disclosure of lawyers’ names in their professional roles does not create a qualifying privacy invasion.
The court likewise found that the names in the two Treasury memoranda were not exempt under Exemption 7(C). It reasoned that the privacy interests were limited because MiMedx executives had publicly discussed matters concerning Cohodes and their meetings with government investigators. The court also considered the public interest in understanding what the government had done. It concluded that disclosure would shed light on the government’s conduct and that this public interest outweighed any individual privacy interests, even assuming a privacy interest existed.
The court separately held that there was no discernible privacy interest in the anonymous email address of a person who sent information between private parties and whose message was later disclosed to the government.
Ruling
Judge Laurel Beeler ordered the government to produce the documents with the following information unredacted: the name of the “MDXG Friend”; the name and email address of the person who forwarded the anonymous email to the FBI; the names of the three January 2018 witnesses; the names of the two February 2018 witnesses; and the email address of the person who offered information about Cohodes in exchange for Bitcoin. The order states that the government must produce this information.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.