Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Substantive rulingFiled May 23, 2024

Marc Cohodes v. United States Department of Justice

Judge
Laurel Beeler
Docket
3:20-cv-04015
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
6
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Marc Cohodes v. DOJ, Judge Beeler ordered the government to disclose information it withheld under Freedom of Information Act privacy exemptions.

Who this affects

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

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Marc Cohodes v. United States Department of Justice · No. 3:20-cv-04015
Judge
Laurel Beeler
Date
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.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.