James E. Scott v. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Admnistration

Case: 19-10653 Date Filed: 10/04/2019 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-10653
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:18-cv-80366-WPD
JAMES E. SCOTT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 4, 2019)
Before MARCUS, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-10653 Date Filed: 10/04/2019 Page: 2 of 6
James E. Scott, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s summary
judgment order dismissing his complaint seeking information under the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Scott filed a complaint with the
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration alleging that an IRS employee
had manipulated and mishandled the issuance of a private letter ruling. He
subsequently filed a request under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, for all agency records
and information related to that complaint. After the Inspector General withheld
some documents in whole or in part—citing 5 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3), (6), (7)(C)
(“Exemption 3,” “Exemption 6,” and “Exemption 7(C)” respectively)—Scott filed
suit seeking to compel their release. The district court dismissed his complaint.
After careful review, we affirm.
* * *
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment in a FOIA case de
novo, viewing all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party, and applying the same standard used by the district court.
Office of the Capital Collateral Counsel, N. Region of Fla. v. United States Dep't
of Justice, 331 F.3d 799, 802 (11th Cir. 2003).
Generally, FOIA cases should be handled on motions for summary
judgment, once the documents in issue are properly identified. Miscavige v. I.R.S.,
2 F.3d 366, 369 (11th Cir. 1993). Summary judgment is appropriate if the
2
Case: 19-10653 Date Filed: 10/04/2019 Page: 3 of 6
pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Once the moving
party has properly supported its motion for summary judgment, the burden shifts to
the non-moving party to come forward with specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial. Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 607-08 (11th
Cir. 1991). Mere conclusions and unsupported factual allegations are legally
insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. Ellis v. England, 432 F.3d
1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2005). In considering a motion for summary judgment, we
“view all evidence most favorably toward the nonmoving party, and all justifiable
inferences are to be drawn in the nonmoving party’s favor.” Hoffman v. Allied
Corp., 912 F.2d 1379, 1383 (11th Cir. 1990).
* * *
Under FOIA, an agency that receives a request for information that
reasonably describes the records sought and is made in accordance with published
rules will promptly make the information available to any person. 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(3). In creating this broad disclosure requirement, however, Congress
exempted nine categories of documents. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b); United States Dep’t of
Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 755 (1989).
Once a claimant has shown that the government records should be disclosed, the
3
Case: 19-10653 Date Filed: 10/04/2019 Page: 4 of 6
burden of proof is on the government to establish that one or more exemptions
apply. Miscavige, 2 F.3d at 367.
In this case, the Inspector General located 39 pages of documents related to
Scott’s FOIA request. No allegation has been made to this Court that the search
was inadequate. The Inspector General withheld 18 pages and released the
remaining 21, with partial redactions on 20 pages. He explained that all withheld
information is exempt under both Exemptions 6 and 7(C), and that certain
documents are also exempt under Exemption 3.
Exemption 6 permits an agency to withhold “personnel and medical files and
similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). The phrase “similar files”
has a broad meaning and includes any detailed Government records on an
individual that can be identified as applying to that individual. News-Press v.
United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 489 F.3d 1173, 1197 (11th Cir. 2007).
Citizens are generally not required to explain why they seek information through
FOIA requests. “When disclosure touches upon certain areas,” however, such as
the privacy concerns of Exemption 6—or Exemption 7(C), for that matter—the
requester must show (1) “that the public interest sought to be advanced is a
significant one,” that is, “an interest more specific than having the information for
4
Case: 19-10653 Date Filed: 10/04/2019 Page: 5 of 6
its own sake,” and (2) that “the information is likely to advance that interest.”
National Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 172 (2004).
A reviewing court must “balance the individual’s right of privacy against the
basic policy of opening agency action to the light of public scrutiny.” Capital
Collateral Counsel, 331 F.3d at 802. We have held that the agency’s burden under
Exemption 6 of showing that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy is an onerous one. News-Press, 489 F.3d at 1198.
In weighing this balance, both the magistrate judge and later the district
court reviewed the full documents in camera and determined that disclosure would
result in the “unnecessary disclosure of personal information.” News-Press, 489
F.3d at 1196 (quoting citation omitted). Here, the withheld information was
correctly categorized as “similar files” under Exemption 6 because it contains
detailed government records on an individual employee of the IRS. See id. at
1197. It contains specifics about the investigation of the employee’s alleged
misconduct in issuing a private letter ruling as well as the resolution of the
complaint. As such, the investigation and resolution would draw significant
speculation, stigma, and embarrassment, as well as practical disabilities such as
loss of employment independent of the ultimate resolution, thereby clearly giving
rise to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. See Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 765;
cf. Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 376-77 (1976) (noting that the
5
Case: 19-10653 Date Filed: 10/04/2019 Page: 6 of 6
release of a cadet’s disciplinary case summary could expose him to lifelong
embarrassment, disgrace, and practical disabilities such as loss of employment or
friends).
We agree with the district court that, as against this invasion of privacy, the
resolution would shed little, if any, light on the Inspector General’s performance of
his statutory duties—the public interest that Scott argues warrants disclosure.
While the agency complaint to the Inspector General raises concerns about the
employee’s compliance with the IRS manual and the process that resulted in the
private letter ruling, Scott fails to allege that such conduct extends beyond this
single action but rather seeks to reveal the outcome of an isolated disciplinary
action.
Accordingly, the disclosure of the investigation and resolution of an internal
complaint of incompetence or failure to properly follow appropriate procedures by
a single individual would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of that
employee’s privacy, and disclosure of the isolated incident would shed little light
on the agency’s statutory duty. All of the information was therefore properly
withheld under Exemption 6, and we needn’t consider the independent grounds for
withholding under Exemptions 3 and 7.
AFFIRMED.
6