Leadership Conference on Civil Rights v. Gonzales

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the names and “personally identifiable information” of certain personnel were properly withheld under Exemption 6
• concluding that Plaintiff was primarily engaged in information dissemination because its “mission is to serve as the site of record for relevant and up-to-the minute civil rights news and information”
• holding that Justice Department paralegals’ “names and work telephone numbers” were not similar to personnel or medical files, while also noting that “their names and work telephone numbers are already publicly available”
• deciding that documents made available to individuals not associated with the agency “cannot be ‘inter-agency or intra-agency’ communication, and thus do not satisfy the requirements for application of the deliberative process privilege of Exemption 5”
• explaining that “substantial privacy interests can exist in personal information even though the information has been made available to the general public”
• noting that 5 “[a]n agency must show more than a great number of requests to establish[ ] exceptional circumstances under the FOIA”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).