Bloomgarden v. NARA, No. 17-2675. 2018 WL 5312188 (D.D.C. Oct. 26, 2018) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)

Bloomgarden v. NARA, No. 17-2675. 2018 WL 5312188 (D.D.C. Oct. 26, 2018) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning a 1995 termination of Assistant United States Attorney

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 6:  "[T]he Court concludes that the ["two, undisclosed letters regarding the termination of [the former AUSA] from the U.S. Attorney's Office"] fall under FOIA Exemption 6 and were rightfully withheld."  The court first finds that "it is an 'indisputable proposition that disclosure of information identifying a particular attorney as the subject of a . . . disciplinary proceeding . . . would violate substantial privacy interests of the attorney.'"  Moreover, "the Court concludes that '[t]he passage of time, without more, does not materially diminish' [the former AUSA's] privacy interest."  Second, the court finds that "the public's interest in the negligent job performance and unremarkable misconduct of a staff-level attorney is relatively low."  "Considering both [the former AUSA's] privacy interest and the public's interest in disclosure, the Court concludes that the equities weigh in favor of [the former AUSA's] privacy interest."