Viet. Veterans of Am. v. DOD, No. 17-1660, 2020 WL 1703239 (D. Conn. Apr. 8, 2020) (Thompson, J.)

Viet. Veterans of Am. v. DOD, No. 17-1660, 2020 WL 1703239 (D. Conn. Apr. 8, 2020) (Thompson, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning results of urine sampling conducted by DOD to measure plutonium contamination levels in bodies of airmen who participated in cleanup of 1966 Palomares nuclear accident

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; granting defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 6:  "Because of the absence here of any public interest cognizable under FOIA, and the presence of measurable privacy interests of the veterans, as well as deceased veterans and their survivors, the court concludes that DOD has met its burden of demonstrating that unredacting the veterans' names would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."  First, the court finds that "[i]t is undisputed that the initial requirement for Exemption 6 is met here, i.e., the personal information is contained in a file similar to a medical or personnel file."  Next, "the court concludes that there is a more than de minimis threat to the privacy interests of the individuals whose names have been redacted."  "Here, the personal information at issue is whether individuals had samples of their urine tested to measure plutonium contamination levels – and in the case of deceased veterans, their bioassay records, which include data-entry sheets and spreadsheets analyzing their urine samples."  "It is undisputed that there is a negative correlation between radiation exposure and health."  Additionally, the court finds that "[w]hile death may have diminished the privacy interests of deceased veterans, it did not render those interests de minimis, and it does not diminish at all the privacy interests of their survivors."  "As to deceased veterans, they still have 'a measurable privacy interest because the information that would be revealed by disclosure is the type of information that a person would ordinarily not wish to make known about himself or herself.'"  Against this privacy interest, the court finds that "[u]nredacting the names will not provide any additional information as to the extent of the harm caused by the radiation exposure other than identifying the individuals who were harmed."  "It will not, in and of itself, increase the public's understanding of the operations or activities of the government in connection with the Palomares nuclear accident."  "The plaintiffs state, correctly, that those who make sacrifices in serving our country should be recognized and that providing the public with the names of the veterans will allow the public to fully appreciate the human cost of the Palomares nuclear accident and dignify the individual experiences of the veterans who were there."  "But this is clearly a derivative theory of public interest."