Long v. Office of Personnel Mgmt. 1

10-1600 (L)
Long v. Office of Personnel Mgmt.
1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2
3
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 4
5
August Term, 2011 6
7
8
(Argued: May 18, 2012 Decided: September 5, 2012) 9
10
Docket Nos. 10-1600 (Lead) 10-1618 (XAP) 11
12
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 13
14
SUSAN B. LONG, DAVID BURNHAM, 15
16
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, 17
18
- v.- 19
20
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 21
22
Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant. 23
24
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 25
26
Before: JACOBS, Chief Judge, CHIN and DRONEY, 27
Circuit Judges. 28
29
Appeal from two orders of the United States District 30
Court for the Northern District of New York (Norman A. 31
Mordue, J.) granting in part and denying in part each side’s 32
motion for summary judgment resolving the applicability of 33
Exemption 6 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 34
552(b)(6), to a federal agency’s decision to withhold names 35
and duty-station information from personnel records for over 36
800,000 federal civilian employees. We hold that the 37

-- 1 of 30 --

2
district court correctly found that the names could be 1
withheld, but erred insofar as it found that the agency must 2
disclose all of the duty-station information. 3
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART. 4
ADINA H. ROSENBAUM, Public Citizen 5
Litigation Group, Washington, 6
D.C. (Scott L. Nelson, on 7
brief), for Appellants-Cross- 8
Appellees. 9
10
STEVE FRANK, United States 11
Department of Justice, 12
Washington, D.C. (Leonard 13
Schaitman, on brief), for Tony 14
West, Assistant Attorney 15
General, for Appellee-Cross- 16
Appellant. 17
18
DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge: 19
20
In response to plaintiffs’ Freedom of Information Act 21
(“FOIA”) request for all records in the central database of 22
defendant Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”), OPM 23
withheld from disclosure the names and duty-station 24
information of over 800,000 federal employees. In a pair of 25
orders, the United States District Court for the Northern 26
District of New York (Norman A. Mordue, J.) granted in part 27
and denied in part each side’s motion for summary judgment 28
resolving the applicability of FOIA’s personal privacy 29
exemption: Exemption 6, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). The district 30

-- 2 of 30 --

1 The CPDF includes records for almost every employee
of the executive branch, except those that work in a few
security agencies, the White House, the Office of the Vice
President, and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
3
court ruled that OPM could withhold all employee names, but 1
that only some of the duty-station information could be 2
withheld. We agree that the names could be withheld, but 3
conclude that OPM was entitled to withhold all of the duty- 4
station information. 5
6
BACKGROUND 7
Plaintiffs Susan Long and David Burnham are professors 8
at Syracuse University and co-directors of the Transactional 9
Records Access Clearinghouse (“TRAC”), a data-gathering, 10
research, and distribution organization affiliated with the 11
university. TRAC’s stated purpose is to provide the public 12
and oversight institutions with “comprehensive information 13
about federal staffing, spending, and the enforcement 14
activities of the federal government.” J.A. 188. 15
Among other data-collection techniques, plaintiffs use 16
FOIA to get records and data from OPM’s Central Personnel 17
Data File (“CPDF”), a database of approximately 100 data 18
elements, or fields, concerning the federal civilian 19
workforce.1 OPM’s static files have information about 20

-- 3 of 30 --

2 There are some exceptions to this policy. For
example, beginning with its response to plaintiffs’ request
for the 1996 CPDF file, OPM withheld name and duty-station
information for all employees in the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms.
3 Plaintiffs’ requests and OPM’s disclosures took place
in several iterations over several years, but these
complexities are irrelevant to the legal issues before us.
4
federal employees at a particular moment in time; its 1
dynamic files record personnel actions over intervals. 2
Covered agencies submit quarterly data to OPM, which stores 3
it in the CPDF. In addition to each employee’s name, the 4
CPDF’s other fields include salary history, duty station, 5
occupation, work schedule, and veteran status. 6
For a time, OPM provided plaintiffs with all the data 7
fields contained in the CPDF, including those associated 8
with the civilian workforce of the Department of Defense 9
(“DoD”).2 Near year-end 2004, plaintiffs requested CPDF 10
records for that year. In February 2005, OPM told 11
plaintiffs it would be applying a newly-implemented data- 12
release policy to their request. The upshot of this new 13
policy is that OPM redacted the names and duty-station 14
information for over 800,000 federal employees, the majority 15
of whom were civilian DoD employees. 3 The duty-station 16
information withheld includes six data elements 17

-- 4 of 30 --

4 The twenty-four occupations are ATF inspection,
border patrol agent, compliance inspection & support,
correctional officer, criminal investigating, custom patrol
officer, customs & border protection, customs & border
protection interdiction, customs inspection, game law
enforcement, general inspection, general investigating,
general national resources & biological science, immigration
inspection, intelligence, intelligence clerk/aide, internal
revenue officer, IRS agent, nuclear engineering, nuclear
materials courier, plant protection & quarantine, police,
U.S. marshal, and hearings & appeals.
5
(organizational component code, duty post, bargaining unit, 1
core-based statistical area, combined statistical area, and 2
locality pay), which together disclose only the city and 3
county where the employee works, but not the street address. 4
For some employees whose duty-station information was 5
redacted, OPM nevertheless indicated whether they worked 6
within the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. 7
OPM withheld names and at least some duty-station 8
information for [I] all employees in what it deemed to be 9
five “sensitive” federal agencies: Bureau of Alcohol, 10
Tobacco, and Firearms (“ATF”), Drug Enforcement Agency 11
(“DEA”), DoD, Secret Service, and United States Mint; and 12
[ii] for those employees across all federal agencies who are 13
in twenty-four “sensitive” occupation categories: e.g., 14
police, criminal investigating, nuclear engineering, game 15
law enforcement. 4
16

-- 5 of 30 --

5 The DoD directed OPM not to release any personnel
files of DoD employees in response to requests under FOIA,
but instead to refer requesting parties to the DoD directly.
Accordingly, in its initial responses to plaintiffs, OPM
withheld all data on DoD employees and directed plaintiffs
to seek it directly from the DoD. Eventually, OPM, with
DoD’s consent, released the DoD data without names or duty
stations.
6
The policy change was security-related. According to 1
the affidavit of OPM’s FOIA officer, Gary Lukowski, the 2
events of September 11, 2001--particularly the attack on the 3
Pentagon--and a subsequent anthrax attack caused OPM to 4
review the vulnerability of the federal workforce to 5
harassment and attack. OPM’s new policy was in part 6
motivated by a similar change in policy undertaken by the 7
DoD in the immediate aftermath of September 11th. 5 OPM also 8
attributes its change in policy to an outcry by a number of 9
individuals and federal agencies in response to a 2004 10
Washington Post feature that provided online access to the 11
CPDF, which allowed anyone to search for federal employees 12
by name, federal agency, or locality. 13
To justify withholding the names and duty-station 14
information, OPM invoked Exemption 6 of FOIA, which protects 15
from disclosure “personnel and medical files and similar 16
files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 17
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 18

-- 6 of 30 --

7
552(b)(6). Plaintiffs unsuccessfully grieved some of the 1
decisions through OPM. 2
This suit seeks disclosure of the information withheld. 3
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court 4
ruled that OPM properly redacted the names and duty stations 5
for federal employees in the five sensitive agencies and 6
four of the sensitive occupations: general national 7
resources and biological science; plant protection and 8
quarantine; hearings and appeals; and border patrol. See 9
Long v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. (Long I), No. 05 Civ. 1522 10
(NAM/DEP), 2007 WL 2903924, at *22 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 11
2007). After further briefing, the court ruled that OPM 12
also properly withheld the names of federal employees in the 13
remaining occupations, see Long v. Office of Personnel 14
Mgmt. (Long II), No. 05 Civ. 1522 (NAM/DEP), 2010 WL 681321, 15
at *15 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2010), but that Exemption 6 did 16
not allow withholding of duty-station information for the 17
remaining sensitive occupations, id. at *17. The parties 18
cross-appealed. 19
20
21
22

-- 7 of 30 --

8
DISCUSSION 1
I 2
“FOIA was enacted to promote honest and open 3
government,” Grand Cent. P’ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 4
473, 478 (2d Cir. 1999), and “to ensure public access to 5
information created by the government in order to hold the 6
governors accountable to the governed,” Tigue v. U.S. Dep’t 7
of Justice, 312 F.3d 70, 76 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal 8
quotation marks omitted). It “strongly favors a policy of 9
disclosure and requires the government to disclose its 10
records unless its documents fall within one of the 11
specific, enumerated exemptions set forth in the Act.” 12
Nat’l Council of La Raza v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 411 F.3d 13
350, 355 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal citation omitted). FOIA 14
exemptions are construed narrowly, and a court is to resolve 15
all doubts in favor of disclosure. See Grand Cent. P’ship, 16
166 F.3d at 478. The government bears the burden of 17
establishing that any claimed exemption applies. Nat’l 18
Council of La Raza, 411 F.3d at 356. 19
FOIA’s Exemption 6 permits federal agencies to withhold 20
from disclosure “personnel and medical files and similar 21
files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 22

-- 8 of 30 --

9
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 1
552(b)(6). To determine whether a federal agency may 2
withhold information pursuant to Exemption 6, we first 3
determine whether the information is kept in “personnel [or] 4
medical files [or] similar files.” Id.; see U.S. Dep’t of 5
State v. Wash. Post Co., 456 U.S. 595, 598-601 (1982). If 6
so, we “balance the public’s need for the information 7
against the individual’s privacy interest to determine 8
whether the disclosure of the names would constitute a 9
‘clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’” Wood 10
v. FBI, 432 F.3d 78, 86 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 11
552(b)(6)); accord U.S. Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 12
175 (1991). 13
In resolving summary judgment motions in a FOIA case, a 14
district court proceeds primarily by affidavits in lieu of 15
other documentary or testimonial evidence, as we have 16
explained: 17
In order to prevail on a motion for summary 18
judgment in a FOIA case, the defending agency 19
has the burden of showing that its search was 20
adequate and that any withheld documents fall 21
within an exemption to the FOIA. Affidavits 22
or declarations supplying facts indicating 23
that the agency has conducted a thorough 24
search and giving reasonably detailed 25
explanations why any withheld documents fall 26
within an exemption are sufficient to sustain 27

-- 9 of 30 --

6 In a similar case, the withholding of names and
duty-station information by OPM was ruled justified by the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
See Ctr. for Pub. Integrity v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt.,
No. 04-1274(GK), 2006 WL 3498089, at *6 (D.D.C. Dec. 4,
2006). That court considered only whether Exemption 6
justified OPM’s withholding of names together with
duty-station information; it did not consider whether
withholding duty-station information decoupled from employee
names was justified by Exemption 6. Id.
10
the agency’s burden. Affidavits submitted by 1
an agency are accorded a presumption of good 2
faith; accordingly, discovery relating to the 3
agency’s search and the exemptions it claims 4
for withholding records generally is 5
unnecessary if the agency’s submissions are 6
adequate on their face. When this is the case, 7
the district court may forgo discovery and 8
award summary judgment on the basis of 9
affidavits. 10
11
Carney v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir. 12
1994) (internal quotation marks, footnote, and citations 13
omitted). Neither party contends that the record in the 14
district court was deficient. Accordingly, we now undertake 15
the same analysis for each category of withheld information, 16
reviewing the district court’s judgment de novo, see Nat’l 17
Council of La Raza, 411 F.3d at 355. 6
18
19
II 20
21
The district court ruled that the names of the federal 22
employees in the five sensitive agencies and twenty-four 23

-- 10 of 30 --

7 There is no real dispute that the CPDF data (with
names included) meets the statutory category of “personnel
and medical files and similar files,” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6),
because the CPDF contains quintessential personnel
information. Plaintiffs do not argue otherwise.
11
sensitive occupations were properly withheld because OPM had 1
demonstrated that disclosure of employee names could subject 2
them to harassment or attack. Long I, 2007 WL 2903924, at 3
*15-19; Long II, 2010 WL 681321, at *16-17. We conclude 4
that the public interests weighing in favor of disclosure 5
are few and weak, and are clearly outweighed by the 6
employees’ privacy interests. 7
8
A 9
Plaintiffs contend that federal employees’ interest in 10
their names is “[m]inimal or [n]on-[e]xistent,” and cannot 11
outweigh the public interest in disclosure.7 (Appellants’ 12
Br. 21.) “The balancing analysis for FOIA Exemption 6 13
requires that we first determine whether disclosure of the 14
files would compromise a substantial, as opposed to de 15
minimis, privacy interest, because if no significant privacy 16
interest is implicated FOIA demands disclosure.” Multi Ag 17
Media LLC v. Dep’t of Agric., 515 F.3d 1224, 1229 (D.C. Cir. 18
2008) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)); 19

-- 11 of 30 --

12
accord Fed. Labor Relations Auth. v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans 1
Affairs, 958 F.2d 503, 509 (2d Cir. 1992). But the bar is 2
low: “FOIA requires only a measurable interest in privacy to 3
trigger the application of the disclosure balancing tests.” 4
Fed. Labor Relations Auth. v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans 5
Affairs, 958 F.2d at 510. 6
The analysis is context specific. “Names and other 7
identifying information do not always present a significant 8
threat to an individual’s privacy interest.” Wood, 432 F.3d 9
at 88 (emphasis added); accord Ray, 502 U.S. at 176 n.12 10
(“We emphasize, however, that we are not implying that 11
disclosure of a list of names and other identifying 12
information is inherently and always a significant threat to 13
the privacy of the individuals on the list.”). “[W]hether 14
disclosure of a list of names is a significant or a de 15
minimis threat depends upon the characteristic(s) revealed 16
by virtue of being on the particular list, and the 17
consequences likely to ensue.” Ray, 502 U.S. at 176 n.12 18
(internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). 19
It is not uncommon for courts to recognize a privacy 20
interest in a federal employee’s work status (as opposed to 21
some more intimate detail) if the occupation alone could 22

-- 12 of 30 --

13
subject the employee to harassment or attack. Courts have 1
recognized, for example, a privacy interest in the names of 2
employees who worked on the regulatory approval of a 3
controversial drug, see Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 4
F.3d 141, 152-53 (D.C. Cir. 2006), and of law enforcement 5
agents who participated in an investigation, see Wood, 432 6
F.3d at 86-89; Nix v. United States, 572 F.2d 998, 1006 (4th 7
Cir. 1978). 8
The record on appeal persuades us that the federal 9
employees in both the sensitive agencies and the sensitive 10
occupations have a cognizable privacy interest in keeping 11
their names from being disclosed wholesale. Michael Donley, 12
the Director of Administration and Management at DoD attests 13
that withholding of employee names is one of many security 14
measures instituted after the attack on the Pentagon on 15
September 11th to make it “as difficult as possible for 16
adversaries to collect valuable information that will enable 17
them to carry out attacks on DoD personnel.” J.A. 328. 18
Moreover, disclosure of names could permit the targeting of 19
individual federal employees and their families outside the 20
workplace. Lukowski, OPM’s FOIA officer, explains: many of 21
the agencies deal with national security, homeland security, 22

-- 13 of 30 --

14
or law enforcement, and “the mission and nature of the work 1
performed by those agencies rendered not only individuals in 2
specific occupations within the agencies, but any employee 3
in the agency, vulnerable to harassment or attack.” J.A. 4
72. OPM’s submissions sufficiently demonstrate that, by and 5
large, federal employees in the sensitive agencies and 6
occupations face an increased risk of harassment or attack. 7
Plaintiffs interpose two further objections. First, 8
they point out that, under law developed in another circuit, 9
Exemption 6 is not a “blanket exemption,” Baez v. U.S. Dep’t 10
of Justice, 647 F.2d 1328, 1339 (D.C. Cir. 1980), or a 11
“categorical rule,” Armstrong v. Exec. Office of the 12
President, 97 F.3d 575, 582 (D.C. Cir. 1996), protecting the 13
names of mine-run federal law enforcement officers. Neither 14
case implies that employees have no privacy interest in 15
their names. Baez held that names could be withheld because 16
the public had no interest in obtaining the names at issue, 17
and implied that employees enjoy at least a minimal privacy 18
interest in their names. See Baez, 647 F.2d at 1339. The 19
ruling in Armstrong is that the Exemption 6 inquiry does not 20
end whenever a privacy interest has been identified, but 21
that the privacy interest must be weighed against the 22
public’s interest in disclosure. Armstrong, 97 F.3d at 581- 23
82. 24

-- 14 of 30 --

15
Second, plaintiffs challenge the withholding of 1
information by category of employee, rather than record-by- 2
record. This argument is not serious. Plaintiffs seek 3
millions upon millions of data elements. FOIA does not 4
require an agency to mobilize its full resources for 5
compliance with FOIA requests. In cases in which 6
considerably smaller amounts of records have been sought, 7
withholding based upon general characteristics of classes of 8
people or employees has been found compliant. See, e.g., 9
U.S. Dep’t of Def. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 510 U.S. 10
487, 501 (1994) (sustaining withholding of names and contact 11
information for entire class of employees without individual 12
inquiry); Nat’l Ass’n of Retired Fed. Emps. v. Horner, 879 13
F.2d 873, 879 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (recognizing privacy interest 14
in list of names of retired and disabled federal employees 15
without individual inquiry). 16
17
B 18
The privacy interest must be weighed against the public 19
interest that would be advanced by disclosure. See Fed. 20
Labor Rel. Auth. v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 958 F.2d 21
at 510 (“[O]nce a more than de minimis privacy interest is 22

-- 15 of 30 --

16
implicated the competing interests at stake must be balanced 1
in order to decide whether disclosure is permitted under 2
FOIA.”). The only public interest cognizable under FOIA is 3
the public “understanding of the operations or activities of 4
the government.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. 5
for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 775 (1989); Bibles v. 6
Or. Natural Desert Ass’n, 519 U.S. 355, 355-56 (1997) 7
(identifying relevant public interest as “extent to which 8
disclosure of the information sought would shed light on an 9
agency’s performance of its statutory duties or otherwise 10
let citizens know what their government is up to” (internal 11
quotation marks and alterations omitted)). 12
In many contexts, federal courts have observed that 13
disclosure of individual employee names tells nothing about 14
“what the government is up to.” See Fed. Labor Relations 15
Auth. v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 958 F.2d at 512; 16
Schwarz v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 131 F. Supp. 2d 142, 150 17
(D.D.C. 2000) (“Disclosure of [names of federal 18
employees] . . . would not contribute to the public 19
understanding of government functions.”); Voinche v. FBI, 20
940 F. Supp. 323, 330 (D.D.C. 1996) (“There is no reason to 21
believe that the public will obtain a better understanding 22

-- 16 of 30 --

17
of the workings of various agencies by learning the 1
identifies of [federal employees].”). Other cases allow for 2
a possible public interest in identifying specific federal 3
employees; but that the interest is slight, and in each case 4
was substantially outweighed by the threat to the employee’s 5
personal privacy. See Wood, 432 F.3d at 88-89 (authorizing, 6
under Exemption 6, redaction of the names of low-level FBI 7
employees who participated in investigation because public 8
interest was insufficiently furthered relative to the 9
potential for harassment); Judicial Watch, 449 F.3d at 10
152-54 (permitting FDA to withhold pursuant to Exemption 6 11
names of employees and outsiders who worked on regulatory 12
approval of “abortion pill”); Fed. Labor Relations Auth. v. 13
U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 962 F.2d 1055, 1060 (D.C. Cir. 1992) 14
(permitting agency to keep private under Exemption 6 list of 15
employees who received positive commendation). 16
Plaintiffs posit a strong public interest in knowing 17
employee names because “Government work is done by people.” 18
But if that were weighed in the balance of the Exemption 6 19
inquiry, little would be left to FOIA’s protection for 20
personal privacy. See Fed. Labor Relations Auth. v. U.S. 21
Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 958 F.2d at 512 (“Compelling 22

-- 17 of 30 --

18
disclosure of personal information, that has no relationship 1
to an agency’s activities, on so attenuated a basis would 2
inevitably result in the disclosure of virtually all 3
personal information, thereby effectively eviscerating the 4
protections of privacy provided by Exemption 6.”). Whether 5
the public has an interest in the identity of federal 6
workers, and to what extent, depends on circumstances, 7
including whether the information sought sheds light on 8
government activity. See Wood, 432 F.3d at 88; Perlman v. 9
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 312 F.3d 100, 107 (2d Cir. 2002), 10
vacated, 541 U.S. 970 (2004), reinstated after remand, 380 11
F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2004). 12
Plaintiffs point to ways in which they (or the media) 13
have used the names of federal employees obtained from the 14
CPDF to inform themselves about what their “government is up 15
to.” Specifically, they cite (1) disparities in the rates 16
at which individual immigration judges grant and deny asylum 17
requests; (2) high turnover rates at particular agencies; 18
(3) agency employees who wrongfully benefit from agency 19
programs; and (4) access to employees in order to “uncover 20
agency malfeasance.” (Appellants’ Br. 34-37.) 21
22

-- 18 of 30 --

8 The same is true for plaintiffs’ assertion that
access to employee names permitted TRAC to “trace[] a large
drop in the enforcement of wildlife laws to the retirement
of one employee.” (Appellants’ Br. 35.) The drop could
just as easily be attributed to the single individual by way
of the unique employee identifier.
19
Such inquiries may be interesting, but they do not 1
illustrate how the disclosure of names serves the purposes 2
of FOIA. First, the disposition data for individual 3
immigration judges are available even though the judges’ 4
names are withheld, because OPM has now replaced employee 5
names with unique identifiers. 8 Second, an employee’s name 6
may be useful for investigating the behavior of individual 7
employees; but courts have been skeptical of recognizing a 8
public interest in this “derivative” use of information, 9
which is indirect and speculative. See Associated Press v. 10
U.S. Dep’t of Def., 554 F.3d 274, 292 (2d Cir. 2009) (“We 11
emphasize that the focus, in assessing a claim under 12
Exemption 6, must be solely upon what the requested 13
information reveals, not upon what it might lead to.” 14
(internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Ray, 502 U.S. 15
at 180 (Scalia, J., concurring) (“[I]t is unavoidable that 16
the focus, in assessing a claim under Exemption 6, must be 17
solely upon what the requested information reveals, not upon 18
what it might lead to.”). But see Painting & Drywall Work 19

-- 19 of 30 --

20
Pres. Fund, Inc. v. Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., 936 F.2d 1
1300, 1303 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (indicating that derivative use 2
of information is cognizable under FOIA, but in that case 3
clearly outweighed by privacy interests). 4
Also discounted is the interest in identifying a 5
federal employee by name in order to make contact or conduct 6
interviews. See Forest Serv. Emps. for Envtl. Ethics v. 7
U.S. Forest Serv., 524 F.3d 1021, 1028 (9th Cir. 2008) 8
(identity of forest service employees could be withheld 9
where primary purpose of identifying employees was to 10
contact employees directly to obtain information). Such a 11
use is an example of the “derivative theory” of public 12
interest, and actually facilitates the invasion of the 13
employee’s personal privacy. See Painting Indus. of Haw. 14
Mkt. Recovery Fund v. U.S. Dep’t of Air Force, 26 F.3d 1479, 15
1485 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Any additional public benefit the 16
requesters might realize through [contact with employees] is 17
inextricably intertwined with the invasions of privacy that 18
those contacts will work.”). The use of personnel files to 19
contact government employees in the hopes of uncovering 20
malfeasance does not serve FOIA’s objectives. 21
22

-- 20 of 30 --

21
C 1
Where public interest favoring disclosure is no more 2
than minimal, a lesser privacy interest suffices to outweigh 3
it. See U.S. Dep’t of Def. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 4
510 U.S. at 500. This reciprocal principle is illustrated 5
by a pair of cases in which unions wanted employee contact 6
information in order to tell them about union activities. 7
While the privacy interest was small, no countervailing 8
public interest at all was cognizable under Exemption 6. 9
See id. at 502 (holding that employees’ home addresses need 10
not be disclosed to unions because such disclosure did not 11
further FOIA’s purpose of open government); Fed. Labor 12
Relations Auth. v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 958 F.2d 13
at 513 (same). 14
Plaintiffs have identified no appreciable public 15
interest militating in favor of the wholesale disclosure of 16
names of employees in the sensitive agencies and sensitive 17
occupations. OPM therefore need not identify any compelling 18
privacy interest in order to “clearly outweigh[]” the 19
nonexistent public interest. See U.S. Dep’t of Def. v. Fed. 20
Labor Relations Auth., 510 U.S. at 500 (“Because a very 21
slight privacy interest would suffice to outweigh the 22

-- 21 of 30 --

22
relevant public interest, we need not be exact in our 1
quantification of the privacy interest. It is enough for 2
present purposes to observe that the employees’ interest in 3
nondisclosure is not insubstantial.”). Accordingly, we hold 4
that Exemption 6 permits OPM to withhold the names of 5
employees working in the sensitive agencies and sensitive 6
occupations. 7
8
III 9
The remaining issue is whether Exemption 6 permits OPM 10
to withhold duty-station information even after employee 11
names have been redacted. The district court’s first 12
opinion considered the duty-station information together 13
with employee names, and found that both were properly 14
withheld for the sensitive agencies and the four sensitive 15
occupations that it considered. Long I, 2007 WL 2903924, at 16
*19. When the district court turned to the remaining twenty 17
sensitive occupations in Long II, it considered duty-station 18
information apart from names and found that “OPM has failed 19
to show more than a de minimis privacy interest in the . . . 20
geographic location of federal employees,” Long II, 2010 WL 21

-- 22 of 30 --

9 This portion of the district court’s reasoning
substantially undermines its earlier finding that OPM could
redact duty-station information for the five sensitive
agencies and four of the sensitive occupations. However, it
did not expressly revisit its earlier order, and we will
assume that it was left intact. In any event, our review is
de novo. See Nat’l Council of La Raza, 411 F.3d at 355.
10 Plaintiffs also posit that employee duty-station
information does not constitute “personnel and medical files
and similar files” referenced in Exemption 6. 5 U.S.C. §
552(b)(6). The redaction of names, however, does not change
the nature of the files that plaintiffs seek--the CPDF is
still a collection of personnel records.
23
681321, at *17 .9 Although the issue is close, we conclude 1
that OPM has demonstrated that employees possess a 2
cognizable privacy interest in their duty-station records 3
de-linked from their names, and that it clearly outweighs 4
any public interest that might be served by disclosure. 5
6
A 7
Plaintiffs argue that federal employees have no privacy 8
interest in their duty-station information once their names 9
have been redacted. 10 “[P]rivacy interests protected by the 10
exemptions to FOIA are broadly construed.” Associated Press 11
v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 549 F.3d 62, 65 (2d Cir. 2008). 12
Exemption 6 extends to “personnel and medical files and 13
similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a 14
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. 15

-- 23 of 30 --

24
§ 552(b)(6). “[B]oth the common law and the literal 1
understandings of privacy encompass the individual’s control 2
of information concerning his or her person.” Reporters 3
Comm., 489 U.S. at 763; Fed. Labor Relations Auth. v. U.S. 4
Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 958 F.2d at 510 (“[T]he concept 5
of privacy is not an abstract concept, but rather a 6
valuable--and, in the present context, elastic--right whose 7
boundaries are delineated by the type of information sought 8
and by the persons requesting it.”). 9
The records sought by plaintiffs are “personal” in the 10
sense that they are specific to individuals. Even if 11
employee names are replaced by anonymous identifiers, every 12
employee entry contains dozens of items of personal 13
information about the individual. The current and career 14
information reveals job classification, pay, veteran status, 15
and work schedule. This data is personal to the employee 16
because it is wholly “information concerning his or her 17
person.” Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 763. And it would be 18
child’s play for a determined researcher to deduce a name 19
from the descriptive data if the researcher is looking for 20
anyone specific. 21
22

-- 24 of 30 --

25
Some duty-station information redacted by OPM was at 1
one time freely available. But it is now private 2
nevertheless in the sense that it is “intended for or 3
restricted to the use of a particular person or group or 4
class of persons: not freely available to the public.” Id., 5
489 U.S. at 763-64 (quoting Webster's Third New 6
International Dictionary 1804 (1976)). OPM’s affidavits on 7
the subject, which we accord a presumption of good faith, 8
see Carney, 19 F.3d at 812, set forth in reasonable detail 9
that OPM (and DoD) now preserve the privacy of duty-station 10
information pursuant to comprehensive data security and 11
safety plans. 12
Plaintiffs contend that “because the withheld records 13
do not provide work addresses . . . the potential harasser 14
or attacker would not be able to locate the employee.” 15
(Appellants’ Br. 59-60.) But knowledge that an employee 16
works for a particular agency or in a particular role, in a 17
particular locality, is often enough to pinpoint the street 18
address of the workplace. Plaintiffs concede as much. Id. 19
at 43. 20
Redaction of names goes a long way toward protecting 21
against surveillance and publicity those things that are 22

-- 25 of 30 --

26
generally treated as nobody else’s business. See Grand 1
Cent. P’ship, 166 F.3d at 485-86. But a primary reason for 2
the protection afforded by Exemption 6 is to protect 3
individuals’ physical safety. See Judicial Watch, 449 F.3d 4
at 152-53. That is the risk that the OPM attests will arise 5
from disclosure of the duty-station information. 6
OPM’s affidavits set forth how terrorists and others 7
could derive specific work addresses from the duty-station 8
information. Plaintiffs contend that this risk of harm is 9
not personal because an individual cannot be identified from 10
disclosure of duty-station information, and therefore any 11
harm would be directed at the entire federal agency (or a 12
particular office location), not the individual employee. 13
Even if an individual cannot be identified from the duty- 14
station information, the risk of harm to that individual is 15
not abated by anonymity. “If the disclosure assisted 16
wrongdoers in carrying out an attack, it would be Jane 17
Doe . . . , [a] real person[], who would be harmed.” 18
(Appellee’s Br. 80.) Federal employees thus have a 19
cognizable personal privacy interest in safeguarding the 20
disclosure of their duty-station information when a risk of 21
such harm is present. 22

-- 26 of 30 --

27
Plaintiffs also label the risk of harm as speculative, 1
but the record satisfies us that the risk is no more 2
attenuated or contingent than risks of harassment or attack 3
that have been recognized in FOIA cases dealing with federal 4
law enforcement officers. See, e.g., Wood, 432 F.3d at 88; 5
Halpern v. FBI, 181 F.3d 279, 297 (2d Cir. 1999). 6
Risk of physical attack distinguishes this case from 7
cases in which the redaction of names has been found 8
sufficient to secure other privacy interests. See Ray, 502 9
U.S. at 175-176 (once names were redacted from interviews 10
with Haitians attempting to enter United States, they had 11
only a de minimis privacy interest in those records); ACLU, 12
543 F.3d 59, 85-86 (2d Cir. 2008), vacated on other grounds, 13
130 S. Ct. 777 (2009) (detainees whose abuse was depicted in 14
photographs had no more than de minimis privacy interest 15
because all identifying information had been redacted). 16
Here, as discussed above, redaction of employee names 17
does not allay the threat of harassment or attack of federal 18
employees. We therefore hold that federal employees have a 19
more than de minimis privacy interest in safeguarding the 20
disclosure of their duty-station information when a risk of 21

-- 27 of 30 --

11 The parties disagree about whether the duty-station
information should be treated as a whole, or as separate
data fields in the CPDF: organizational component, post of
duty, bargaining unit, core-based statistical area, combined
statistical area, and locality pay area. Organizational
component codes are 18-digit codes, a portion of which
indicates the employees’ place within the hierarchy of the
agency, and a portion of which might indicate where the
employee is geographically located. Plaintiffs contend that
organizational components are different because they
primarily tell where an employee fits within an
organization’s overall structure, and only sometimes contain
geographic information as well. However, OPM has
sufficiently shown that, because organizational codes are
unique to each agency and frequently changing, there is no
feasible way for it to segregate those that contain
geographic information from those that do not, or to redact
the portion of the code that contains the geographic
information.
28
such harm is present. 11
1
2
B 3
It remains to weigh the employees’ privacy interests 4
against the public’s interest in the duty-station 5
information. The chief public interest identified by 6
plaintiffs is an interest in seeing where the federal 7
government deploys its personnel. Although this information 8
might shed some dim, diffused light on “what the Government 9
is up to,” Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 780 (internal 10
quotation marks omitted), the number of federal employees 11
here and there is a rough data point that imparts virtually 12
nothing about the function of the federal government. 13

-- 28 of 30 --

12 OPM cites two reports, one prepared by The White
House, and one prepared by FEMA itself. See The Federal
Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned (2006),
available at http://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/reports/katrina-lessons-learned; A
Performance Review of FEMA’s Disaster Management Activities
in Response to Hurricane Katrina, OIG-06-32 (2006),
available at
http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_06-32_Mar06.pdf.
29
OPM has identified other sources from which plaintiffs 1
could obtain much of the information they seek. That 2
further reduces the public interest, such as it is. See 3
U.S. Dep’t of Def. Dep’t of Military Affairs v. Fed. Labor 4
Relations Auth., 964 F.2d 26, 29-30 (D.C. Cir. 1992) 5
(recognizing that “alternative sources of information 6
available that could serve the public interest in 7
disclosure” diminish public interest value of disclosure). 8
For example, plaintiffs present a hypothetical comparison of 9
staffing levels in the Federal Emergency Management Agency 10
before and after Hurricane Katrina; but OPM points out that 11
multiple, comprehensive reports exist on the subject. 12
12
Finally, the duty-station information is on a 13
comprehensive computerized database that is vulnerable to 14
analysis and manipulation by persons seeking to identify 15
targets for violence, or to increase casualties. Heightened 16
vigilance is appropriate in cases involving computerized 17
databases. See Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 766-67 (citing 18

-- 29 of 30 --

30
the Privacy Act of 1974 for the proposition that “Congress’ 1
basic policy concern regarding the implications of 2
computerized data banks for personal privacy is certainly 3
relevant”). 4
The threat cited by OPM is not specific as to location 5
or individual. But plaintiffs seek records of millions of 6
employees who work in dozens of agencies and hundreds of 7
occupations. It is not feasible to gauge the threat to each 8
individual employee, office, or facility included in the 9
CPDF. Since the defendant agency has already demonstrated 10
that employees will be put at risk by disclosure, this 11
uncertainty has weight in the balance struck by Exemption 6. 12
Accordingly, we hold that OPM has demonstrated that 13
employee privacy concern about the release of their duty- 14
station information clearly outweighs the public interests 15
identified by plaintiffs. 16
17
CONCLUSION 18
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of 19
the district court insofar as it ruled that FOIA Exemption 6 20
permitted OPM to withhold all of the names at issue and some 21
of the duty-station information, but REVERSE insofar as it 22
ruled that duty-station information for twenty sensitive 23
occupations must be disclosed. 24

-- 30 of 30 --