22-1812 BuzzFeed Inc. v. United States Department of Justice UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 29th day of June, two thousand twenty- three. PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, BETH ROBINSON, SARAH A. L. MERRIAM Circuit Judges. _________________________________________ BUZZFEED INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 22-1812 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant-Appellee. _________________________________________ FOR APPELLANT: MATTHEW TOPIC, Loevy & Loevy, Chicago, IL FOR APPELLEE: JEAN-DAVID BARNEA, Assistant U.S Attorney, Christopher Connolly (on the brief), Assistant U.S. Attorney, Damian Williams (on the brief), U.S. Attorney, New York, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (John G. Koeltl, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on June 21, 2022, is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant BuzzFeed Inc. appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) on BuzzFeed’s claim under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and arguments on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. In July 2020 the DOJ Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) published an investigative summary of a report entitled “Findings of Misconduct by a Former 2 DOJ Executive Officer for Making Inappropriate Comments Constituting Sexual Harassment to a Subordinate on Three Occasions.” 1 Jt. App’x 15. The same day, a BuzzFeed representative submitted a FOIA request for the underlying report (“the Report”). In March 2021, OIG gave BuzzFeed the Report after redacting certain personally identifying information pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C) of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), (b)(7)(C). The DOJ Office of Information Policy subsequently denied BuzzFeed’s administrative appeal of OIG’s decision to redact, as relevant here, the Subject’s identity. 2 BuzzFeed subsequently filed this action in the district court, challenging the OIG’s redaction of the Subject’s identity. Reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment, and weighing the factors this Court set forth in Perlman v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 312 F.3d 100, 107 (2d Cir. 2002), vacated, 541 U.S. 970 (2004), reaff’d on remand, 380 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2004), the district court determined that the privacy interests at stake outweighed the contribution that disclosure would …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals