On July 12, 2022, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) denied the Freedom of Information ( FOIA) Appeal filed by Eli Kay-Oliphant (Appellant) from three partial determination letters (Partial Determination Letters) issued by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Public Information ( OPI). On Appeal, the Appellant argued that the agency failed to conduct an adequate search, that it failed to adequately explain why it made redactions pursuant to Exemption 6, and that it inappropriately made redactions pursuant to Exemption 6.
Regarding the matter of the adequacy of the Partial Determination Letters, an examination of the Determination Letter revealed that the letter (1) adequately described the results of searches; (2) clearly indicated which information was withheld; and (3) specified the exceptions or exemptions under which information was withheld insofar as it concerned Exemption 6.
The Appellant argued that OPI should have conducted further searches based on the contents of the responsive records. Namely, the Appellant argues that OPI should have searched records belonging to an individual named "Sofie," the office referred to as "Program," the Office of the Under Secretary for Infrastructure, and the Office of the Under Secretary for Science & Innovation. Upon further investigation, it was determined that "Sofie" was not a DOE employee, and accordingly, any documents in her possession could not be searched. Further, the officer referred to as "Program" was the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE), which had been searched. Regarding the other offices in question, it was not readily apparent on the face of the responsive records that the Office of the Under Secretary for Infrastructure and the Office of the Under Secretary for Science & Innovation possessed any responsive records. As OPI did not have a clear and certain lead in the responsive documents, we found no error in the fact that they did not search the aforementioned offices.
The Appellant also argued that the Exemption 6 redactions were inappropriate. One redaction consisted of an email address. The other redaction consisted of personal information belonging to an individual. The redaction of the email address was appropriate, as courts have generally found that personal email addresses are "similar files" under Exemption 6, and further, the individuals who own email addresses have a privacy interest in preventing disclosure in order to avoid harassment. The redaction of the personal information was appropriate, because not only was this document a "similar file," but releasing conversations containing personal information about federal employees would be an invasion of privacy that could open employees up to harassment while providing no discernable benefit to the public. Therefore, the redactions were appropriate. (OHA Case No. FIA-22-0020)