Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

Before SMITH, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
DeMOSS, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Avondale Industries, Inc. appeals from a final order and judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana which denies Avondale's motion for summary
cross-motion for summary judgment, holding that documents sought by Avondale are protected under an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). For the following reasons, we REVERSE.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In June 1993, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") held an election at Avondale Industries, Inc. ("Avondale"), a ship-building company, to
Union) as their collective bargaining representative. The election, which involved approximately 4,000 employees voting at five polling locations, was conducted pursuant to an election agreement between the parties and NLRB election procedures. Per the
agreement, the employees were instructed to vote at one of five assigned polling "zones."
Each of the five voting zones had two voting lists: one "zone list" of
procedures, when individual voters presented themselves to vote at their assigned
count after the election showed 1,804 votes in favor of union representation and 1,263 votes against union representation.
After the election, Avondale invoked the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA")
master voting lists and zone voting lists for each polling place; and (3) each

Halloran, 874 F.2d at 323. Within this framework, the court must balance the individual's right of privacy against the basic policy of opening an agency's action to the light of public scrutiny.
Exemption 6
To specifically prevail under Exemption 6, the government must establish that the invasion of
privacy, but only those disclosures which constitute clearly unwarranted invasions of privacy.
necessary to prevent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2);
segregable and the overall privacy interests of the individual clearly outweigh the presumption of public disclosure. See,
We must, therefore, ask whether the NLRB has discharged its burden of demonstrating
a clearly unwarranted invasion of the voters' personal privacy. Ray, 112 S.
invasion of the voters' privacy.
Ruling from the bench, the district court held that the unredacted voting lists were entitled to exemption pursuant to Exemption 6. The court's oral ruling, in its entirety, is as follows:
While this court considers this to be a very close call, I'm
respect to the agency.
It is questionable as to how much information is going to be obtained as to the actions of the agency involved here, so, I'm going to yield to the privacy interests here and invoke or allow the NLRB to invoke Exemption 6 here.
I have problems with 7 because of its broadness, and I certainly don't think that this is one of those cases which involves a categorical exemption.
So, I believe that the analysis under Exemption 6 would apply here, and based upon that, I'm going to grant the NLRB's motion for summary judgment and deny Avondale's motion for summary judgment.
The district court did not enter a written order.
Given the brevity of the district court's ruling, it is uncertain what
court did not apply the correct standard.
Federal regulations state that, "[t]he formal documents constituting the
personnel files, medical files, and similar files need not be disclosed if disclosure would constitute a
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, Exemption 6 cases require a balancing
1604-1605; United States Department of Defense, Et Al., v. Federal Labor Relations
at 546.
The district court was correct in asserting that it was required to balance
that the burden is on the government to establish that the invasion of privacy
that the NLRB has not met its burden.
The NLRB correctly asserts that, to determine whether disclosure of the
a viable privacy interest. The NLRB argues that they do. Specifically, the NLRB argues that the employees' privacy interests include: "their names and home addresses, identification as members of a specialized group of shipbuilding employees, and information
indicating who voted and who did not vote in the representation election." The NLRB argues that "the nature of the threatened invasion of these employees' privacy interests if the Voting Lists are disclosed includes: receiving unwanted mail at their homes
from marketers or others, creating an atmosphere of surveillance over employees'

As stated earlier, Exemptions 7(A) and 7(C) exempt from disclosure,
records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but
could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
5 U.S.C. § 552(b). In finding Exemption 7 inapplicable, the district court stated only as follows: "I have problems with 7 because of its broadness, and I certainly don't think that this is one of those cases which involves a categorical exemption." We
agree that Exemption 7 does not apply.
The threshold inquiry is whether the marked voting lists were compiled for "law enforcement purposes." "[T]he Government
S. Ct. 471, 475 (1989). In this case, there is no summary judgment evidence showing that the unredacted voting lists were, in any way, compiled for a law enforcement purpose. Nor do we find any case law which supports a finding that the marked voting lists
of union representation proceedings are considered compiled for law enforcement
this issue.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court granting the
REVERSED and REMANDED.