Janangelo v. Treasury Inspector Gen. for Tax Admin., No. 17-15838, 2018 WL 2979010 (9th Cir. June 14, 2018) (Schroeder, J., Gould, J., Diaz, J.)

Janangelo v. Treasury Inspector Gen. for Tax Admin., No. 17-15838, 2018 WL 2979010 (9th Cir. June 14, 2018) (Schroeder, J., Gould, J., Diaz, J.)

Re:  Request for a report

Disposition:  Affirming district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant

• Exemption 6, Glomar & Waiver: The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holds that the agency "did not waive its ability to make a so-called Glomar response" because the report sought "has not been 'officially acknowledged.'"  The agency's email telling the requester to file a FOIA request for the information "does not amount to an affirmative admission that the requested report exists[,] [n]or does [an attorney's] ambiguous declaration . . . that she was 'familiar with the document [the requester] seeks.'"  The court holds  that "[b]ecause these statements do not precisely match an admission that the requested report exists, [the agency] was entitled to make a Glomar response . . .."
  
  The court further holds that “the requested disclosure would constitute a 'clearly unwarranted' invasion of [the requester's] former boss's personal privacy."  The court finds that the requester produced no evidence "that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that the alleged Government impropriety might have occurred."  The court explains that the requester's "lewd claims implicate '[s]ignificant privacy interests,' because 'association of [the requester's former boss's] name with allegations of sexual and professional misconduct could cause [her] great personal and professional embarrassment[.]'"  The court gives "greater weight to the privacy interests of 'lower level officials' like [the requester's] former boss."