FIA-21-0012 - In the Matter of Charles Robbins

On July 20, 2021, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) remanded in part a FOIA appeal filed by Charles Robbins (Appellant) concerning a FOIA request he made to the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Inspector General (OIG). The OIG withheld the names of various individuals on its staff in the responsive records pursuant to FOIA Exemption 6. On appeal, the Appellant argued that OIG's Exemption 6 redactions were improper because disclosure was required under 5 C.F.R. § 293.311. The Appellant also asserted that some of the employees whose names OIG had redacted in the responsive documents were also disclosed in other parts of the same responsive documents. Further, the Appellant contended that since the OIG's public website includes the names and position titles of seven OIG management personnel, OIG waived its ability to invoke Exemption 6 for those OIG management personnel. OHA determined that the regulation which Appellant relied on does not preclude withholding under an otherwise available FOIA exemption. After review, OHA found that OIG personnel have an enhanced privacy interest in their identities and the Appellant had not identified any public interest in disclosing the employees' names that outweighed that privacy interest. Also, since OIG already revealed the names of the senior decision-makers in the responsive documents, any public interest in the names of comparatively lower-level OIG employees who had peripheral roles in the matter is diminished. Accordingly, OHA concluded that OIG properly invoked Exemption 6 as to the names of the lower-level OIG employees in the responsive documents. Additionally, OHA determined that to the extent that there are inconsistencies in some of OIG's redactions, inadvertent disclosures do not waive OIG's ability to invoke Exemption 6 as to the redacted names in the responsive documents. However, OHA was unable to determine whether OIG's redaction of one of its management SES level employees was proper because the OIG had not resolved an inconsistency in its rationale for withholding the name of that employee. Accordingly, OHA remanded the Appeal in part. OHA Case No. FIA-21-0012