Business Law Case Summary
1. Balancing these privacy interests against the public interest in disclosure displays a one-sided scale—weighing heavily on the side of non-disclosure.
Now having presented Joe Smith’s privacy interest, the court must now strike the balance between the privacy and public interests. The purpose of FOIA was to open government agencies to “the light of public scrutiny.” See Ray; see also DOJ Reporters. So, if the files do not constitute a “clearly” unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, then a court will order disclosure. See Ray. Even still, the requested information must shed light on the agency’s performance of it’s statutory duties. See Ray. This is also referred to as the “central-purpose” doctrine. See Law Review. Meaning, does …show more content…
See record. And Secondly, the misconduct sheet gives a date, and describes the department where the filing employee worked. See Record. As Peter Simpson stated in his FOIA request form, it is for “the purpose of informing the public of developments in the Government that play a role in environmental issues.” See Exhibit A. The documents, however, reveal nothing about the Forest Service, how they carry out their statutory duties, or how this affects environmental issues.
U.S. Dep’t of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, applies to the facts in this case. See U.S. v Federal Labor. Not only did the court wrestle with FOIA, the Justices also wrestled with synergy between the Privacy Act and Exemption 6. The same thing is occurring in this case. The court held that the addresses of union employees would not contribute to the public knowledge on how the government conducts activities. See U.S. v Federal Labor. So, the court relied on the Privacy Act and Exemption 6 to preclude …show more content…
DOJ v. Reporters highlights this point. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press sought a prisoner’s rap sheet, and the Respondents alleged there was a public interest in disclosure because the prisoner had improper dealings with a corrupt Congressman. See DOJ at 774. Thus, the public interest was learning about the corrupt Congressman. Even with these extraordinary circumstances, the court concluded that the file “would tell us nothing about the character of the Congressman’s behavior. Nor would it tell us anything about the conduct of the Department of Defense.” DOJ at 774 (emphasis
Now having presented Joe Smith’s privacy interest, the court must now strike the balance between the privacy and public interests. The purpose of FOIA was to open government agencies to “the light of public scrutiny.” See Ray; see also DOJ Reporters. So, if the files do not constitute a “clearly” unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, then a court will order disclosure. See Ray. Even still, the requested information must shed light on the agency’s performance of it’s statutory duties. See Ray. This is also referred to as the “central-purpose” doctrine. See Law Review. Meaning, does …show more content…
See record. And Secondly, the misconduct sheet gives a date, and describes the department where the filing employee worked. See Record. As Peter Simpson stated in his FOIA request form, it is for “the purpose of informing the public of developments in the Government that play a role in environmental issues.” See Exhibit A. The documents, however, reveal nothing about the Forest Service, how they carry out their statutory duties, or how this affects environmental issues.
U.S. Dep’t of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, applies to the facts in this case. See U.S. v Federal Labor. Not only did the court wrestle with FOIA, the Justices also wrestled with synergy between the Privacy Act and Exemption 6. The same thing is occurring in this case. The court held that the addresses of union employees would not contribute to the public knowledge on how the government conducts activities. See U.S. v Federal Labor. So, the court relied on the Privacy Act and Exemption 6 to preclude …show more content…
DOJ v. Reporters highlights this point. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press sought a prisoner’s rap sheet, and the Respondents alleged there was a public interest in disclosure because the prisoner had improper dealings with a corrupt Congressman. See DOJ at 774. Thus, the public interest was learning about the corrupt Congressman. Even with these extraordinary circumstances, the court concluded that the file “would tell us nothing about the character of the Congressman’s behavior. Nor would it tell us anything about the conduct of the Department of Defense.” DOJ at 774 (emphasis