BURTON A. LIBRACH, APPELLANT,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court properly applied FOIA exemptions to withhold certain documents, denying the petition for a writ of mandamus.
Petitioner sought documents under FOIA. The district court initially withheld portions, and this court remanded for a more detailed explanation. The d…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Freedom Of Information Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before the court upon the petition of Burton A. Librach for a writ of mandamus to compel the Honorable H. Kenneth Wangelin, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to order the release and disclosure of certain files requested by Librach under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552.
On October 19, 1978, we remanded this action to the district judge for an explanation in greater detail of his ruling of September 13, 1978, holding portions of the requested documents exempt from disclosure.
Judge Wangelin has issued a revised order identifying (1) the documents in terms of the agencies which furnished them, (2) the portions to be released by page number, (3) the exemptions applicable to the withheld material, and (4) the reasons for upholding those exemptions. With respect to the FBI materials, the district court denied access only to portions of investigatory records containing the names of persons who were investigated for suspected criminal activity or who are otherwise mentioned therein, but who were not indicted or tried. We find that the court correctly applied exemption 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) to protect the named persons from a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The same names were properly withheld from the materials provided by the Department of Justice.
The district court properly withheld a medical file for which the Department of Justice claimed exemption 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), which exempts “* * * medical files * * * the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
The court also upheld, under exemption 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3), comments on grand jury testimony and a tax return restricted from disclosure by Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e) and 26 U.S.C. § 6103. We find no error in Judge Wangelin’s determination with respect to these documents.
The district court applied exemptions 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3), (7)(C) and (E) to materials in the possession of the United States Marshal’s Service. The records pertain to the relocation of a witness under the Department of Justice Witness Security Program. The court agreed with the government’s contention that to release these materials would jeopardize the effectiveness of the Witness Security Program and would invade the personal privacy of the witness. We agree with Judge Wangelin’s conclusions.
The district court has sufficiently complied with the ruling by this court of October 19, 1978. The petition of Burton A. Librach for a writ of mandamus is therefore denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Fund FOR Constitutional Gov't v. Nat'l Archives & Records Serv., 656 F.2d 856 (D.C. Cir. 1981)
-
Baez v. United States Dep't of Just., 647 F.2d 1328 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
-
Kuehnert v. FBI, 620 F.2d 662 (8th Cir. 1980)
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence