Law School Discussion

SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.

goaliechica

  • *****
  • 6178
  • It's only forever - not long at all.
    • View Profile
Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« Reply #72300 on: August 07, 2009, 03:17:35 PM »
lethargic.  taking questions.

Why don't courts acknowledge the distinction between the requirements of the two separate clauses of FOIA Exemption 7(E)?  ???

because they're reading in a comma between "prosecutions" and "if".

i think.  i've only dealt with that particular exemption in a few instances, so i'm not that sure.

I think you're right. But the DOJ guidelines are very clear that they are different! But then no courts seem to treat them as such, or develop that distinction at all. Grumble!

Okay, I read 7(E) now.

If they were reading in a comma between "prosecutions" and "if," wouldn't both clauses/exemptions require a showing of risk?  Isn't that good if you're seeking information? 

That is what the additional comma would mean. BUT, there isn't a comma there, and so the risk of harm is only supposed to apply to the second part (and DOJ guidelines make this clear). Courts, on the other hand, don't seem to have gotten the memo.

And yes, if you're seeking information, it would be better if the section were written or interpreted that way. But right now we're just trying to figure out we know exactly what caselaw has to say about 7(E), and caselaw is a bit muddled, to say the least. If it were consistently stated that the harm risk applied throughout, even though that's not what the text says, that would be good news. But of course no one ever really says. They just blunder around it.

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« Reply #72301 on: August 07, 2009, 03:22:55 PM »
That is what the additional comma would mean. BUT, there isn't a comma there, and so the risk of harm is only supposed to apply to the second part (and DOJ guidelines make this clear). Courts, on the other hand, don't seem to have gotten the memo.

And yes, if you're seeking information, it would be better if the section were written or interpreted that way. But right now we're just trying to figure out we know exactly what caselaw has to say about 7(E), and caselaw is a bit muddled, to say the least. If it were consistently stated that the harm risk applied throughout, even though that's not what the text says, that would be good news. But of course no one ever really says. They just blunder around it.

I think we're on the same page.

Yours sounds like as good an answer as any: The exemption is written to require a risk showing only for the second ("guidelines for LE investigations and prosecutions") prong, and the DOJ guide makes this clear (http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/exemption7e.htm).  Nonetheless, courts have often muddled the distinction between the two prongs, so it's likely a good idea for advocates to discuss the (lack of) risk in any FOIA challenge under either prong.

Of course I don't know what you're writing, exactly.   :-\

goaliechica

  • *****
  • 6178
  • It's only forever - not long at all.
    • View Profile
Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« Reply #72302 on: August 07, 2009, 03:33:23 PM »
That is what the additional comma would mean. BUT, there isn't a comma there, and so the risk of harm is only supposed to apply to the second part (and DOJ guidelines make this clear). Courts, on the other hand, don't seem to have gotten the memo.

And yes, if you're seeking information, it would be better if the section were written or interpreted that way. But right now we're just trying to figure out we know exactly what caselaw has to say about 7(E), and caselaw is a bit muddled, to say the least. If it were consistently stated that the harm risk applied throughout, even though that's not what the text says, that would be good news. But of course no one ever really says. They just blunder around it.

I think we're on the same page.

Yours sounds like as good an answer as any: The exemption is written to require a risk showing only for the second ("guidelines for LE investigations and prosecutions") prong, and the DOJ guide makes this clear (http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/exemption7e.htm).  Nonetheless, courts have often muddled the distinction between the two prongs, so it's likely a good idea for advocates to discuss the (lack of) risk in any FOIA challenge under either prong.

Of course I don't know what you're writing, exactly.   :-\

Yes, quite!

I suppose maybe I should be more discreet about this stuff.  :P

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« Reply #72303 on: August 07, 2009, 03:39:19 PM »
Pish posh.  Your discretion is legendary!

goaliechica

  • *****
  • 6178
  • It's only forever - not long at all.
    • View Profile
Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« Reply #72304 on: August 07, 2009, 03:49:27 PM »
Pish posh.  Your discretion is legendary!

 :D

True, but not in the right direction.

Thistle

  • *****
  • 6324
    • View Profile
Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« Reply #72305 on: August 07, 2009, 04:36:51 PM »
lethargic.  taking questions.

Why don't courts acknowledge the distinction between the requirements of the two separate clauses of FOIA Exemption 7(E)?  ???

because they're reading in a comma between "prosecutions" and "if".

i think.  i've only dealt with that particular exemption in a few instances, so i'm not that sure.

I think you're right. But the DOJ guidelines are very clear that they are different! But then no courts seem to treat them as such, or develop that distinction at all. Grumble!

Okay, I read 7(E) now.

If they were reading in a comma between "prosecutions" and "if," wouldn't both clauses/exemptions require a showing of risk?  Isn't that good if you're seeking information? 


speaking of FOIA, i wish the department of energy would get back to me about the FOIA Officer job that i interviewed for TWO MONTHS AGO.

sigh.

i suspect they hired someone else and didnt bother to tell me....

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« Reply #72306 on: August 07, 2009, 05:19:46 PM »
speaking of FOIA, i wish the department of energy would get back to me about the FOIA Officer job that i interviewed for TWO MONTHS AGO.

sigh.

i suspect they hired someone else and didnt bother to tell me....

Oh, you don't want to do that anyway, hiding lobbying junkets in the name of defending national security.  Eff them!

Thistle

  • *****
  • 6324
    • View Profile
Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« Reply #72307 on: August 07, 2009, 05:25:09 PM »
speaking of FOIA, i wish the department of energy would get back to me about the FOIA Officer job that i interviewed for TWO MONTHS AGO.

sigh.

i suspect they hired someone else and didnt bother to tell me....

Oh, you don't want to do that anyway, hiding lobbying junkets in the name of defending national security.  Eff them!



they qualified me as a GS12...best treatment i've gotten so far.

dammit.

i am beginning to feel quite distressed by all this, along with everything else that is going on  :P

mugatu

  • *****
  • 21790
  • I'll show YOU pacifist.
    • View Profile
Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« Reply #72308 on: August 07, 2009, 08:13:58 PM »
I just watched Desperately Seeking Susan.

The only thing worse than Madonna's acting in Desperately Seeking Susan is everyone else's acting in Desperately Seeking Susan.  And the character development.  And the plot.  And...yeah.

Elephant Lee

  • ****
  • 4664
  • Maybe ju an' me are amigos!
    • View Profile
Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« Reply #72309 on: August 07, 2009, 09:04:37 PM »
Speaking of rich, middle-aged dudes dying of coke-related heart attacks...