The New York Times Company v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Background

In April 2021, The New York Times Company and reporter Charlie Savage submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). They sought records concerning shootings involving FBI officers, including reports and disciplinary findings from the FBI’s Shooting Incident Review Team, Shooting Incident Review Group, and Office of Professional Responsibility.

The plaintiffs filed this action on December 20, 2021, while the request was still being processed. The FBI searched its Central Records System and two offices it identified as likely to have responsive records. It reviewed 703 pages and produced six pages in full and 667 pages in part. After further negotiations and reprocessing, the remaining dispute concerned limited redactions in two Office of Professional Responsibility precedent reports.

Those reports summarized earlier reviews of possible misconduct by FBI personnel and the resulting disciplinary actions. The redacted material included unique Office of Professional Responsibility numbers, descriptions of alleged misconduct, and mitigating and aggravating factors. The FBI said that the details could identify the officers who were the subjects of the disciplinary actions and third parties involved in the incidents.

Parties’ Arguments

The FBI moved for summary judgment, arguing that the redactions were authorized by FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C), which protect personal privacy. The plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and challenged the redactions. They argued that Exemption 7(C) did not apply because the reports were not compiled for law-enforcement purposes, that the FBI had not adequately identified a privacy interest, and that the public interest in disclosure was greater.

Court’s Analysis

The court analyzed Exemptions 6 and 7(C) together because both require balancing privacy interests against the public interest in disclosure. Exemption 6 protects personnel, medical, and similar files when disclosure would clearly be an unwanted invasion of personal privacy. Exemption 7(C) protects law-enforcement records when disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause an unwanted invasion of personal privacy. The court stated that Exemption 6 provides the more demanding privacy test and therefore decided the dispute under that exemption.

The court held that FBI employees who are subjects of investigations have a strong privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of investigative details. That interest can arise not only from disclosure of a person’s name, but also from details about an event that could identify the person to members of the public or people familiar with the incident.

After reviewing the reports and the FBI’s supporting declaration, the court found the FBI’s explanation logical and plausible. The redactions could identify officers through details such as their years of FBI service, prior injuries, and the circumstances of the shootings. Other redactions concerned third parties involved in the incidents. The court also found that the FBI had acted responsively by producing records, reprocessing documents, and narrowing the redactions during the litigation.

The court concluded that the privacy interests outweighed the public interest in the limited withheld material. It found little public interest in identifying law-enforcement personnel or third parties because that information would reveal little about the conduct or administration of FBI investigations. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the redacted material would show what information the Office of Professional Responsibility considered when deciding discipline, reasoning that the argument was speculative and disproportionate to the small amount of information withheld.

The court noted that the released portions already showed that an FBI officer who intentionally discharged a weapon on March 22, 2019, received a five-day suspension, and that another officer involved in an intentional discharge on February 11, 2019, would have received a 55-day suspension but resigned before the finding was transmitted.

Because the court held that Exemption 6 supported the redactions, it did not decide whether Exemption 7(C) independently applied. It also determined that an examination of the documents in the courtroom was unnecessary.

Disposition

The court granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment, held that the FBI properly withheld the redacted information under FOIA Exemption 6, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the Government, and closed the motions and the case.