TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Burton A. Librach v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Burton A. LIBRACH, Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Et Al., Appellees

Librach v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 587 F.2d 372 (8th Cir. 1978)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 3, 1978
Docket
No. 78-1671
Judges
Ross, McMillian, Larson
Citations
587 F.2d 3721978 U.S. App. LEXIS 7986

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the court upon the petition of Burton A. Librach for a writ of mandamus to compel the Honorable H. Kenneth Wangelin, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to order the release and disclosure of certain files requested by Librach under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 .

On October 19, 1978, we remanded this action to the district judge for an explanation in greater detail of his ruling of September 13, 1978, holding portions of the requested documents exempt from disclosure.

Judge Wangelin has issued a revised order identifying (1) the documents in terms of the agencies which furnished them, (2) the portions to be released by page number, (3) the exemptions applicable to the withheld material, and (4) the reasons for upholding those exemptions.

*373 With respect to the FBI materials, the district court denied access only to portions of investigatory records containing the names of persons who were investigated for suspected criminal activity or who are otherwise mentioned therein, but who were not indicted or tried. We find that the court correctly applied exemption 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(7)(C) to protect the named persons from a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The same names were properly withheld from the materials provided by the Department of Justice.

The district court properly withheld a medical file for which the Department of Justice claimed exemption 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(6), which exempts “* * * medical files * * * the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

The court also upheld, under exemption 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(3), comments on grand jury testimony and a tax return restricted from disclosure by Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e) and 26 U.S.C. § 6103 . We find no error in Judge Wangelin’s determination with respect to these documents.

The district court applied exemptions 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(3), (7)(C) and (E) to materials in the possession of the United States Marshal’s Service. The records pertain to the relocation of a witness under the Department of Justice Witness Security Program. The court agreed with the government’s contention that to release these materials would jeopardize the effectiveness of the Witness Security Program and would invade the personal privacy of the witness. We agree with Judge Wangelin’s conclusions.

The district court has sufficiently complied with the ruling by this court of October 19, 1978. The petition of Burton A. Librach for a writ of mandamus is therefore denied.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 20 cases

View all citing references →
1979: 31980: 31981: 41984: 31986: 11987: 11992: 11999: 12003: 12010: 12012: 119792026peak 1981 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kiraly v. Federal Bureau of Investigation728 F.2d 273 (6th Cir. 1984)
  2. Fund for Constitutional Government v. National Archives and Records Service656 F.2d 856 (D.C. Cir. 1981)
  3. Living Rivers, Inc. v. United States Bureau of Reclamation272 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (D. Utah 2003)
  4. May v. Internal Revenue Service85 F. Supp. 2d 939 (W.D. Mo. 1999)
  5. Joan C. Baez v. United States Department of Justice647 F.2d 1328 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
  6. Michael Rimmer v. Eric Holder, Jr.700 F.3d 246 (6th Cir. 2012)

Most recent

  1. Michael Rimmer v. Eric Holder, Jr.700 F.3d 246 (6th Cir. 2012)
  2. Bonadonna v. United States Department of Justice791 F. Supp. 2d 269 (D. Mass. 2010)
  3. Living Rivers, Inc. v. United States Bureau of Reclamation272 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (D. Utah 2003)
  4. May v. Internal Revenue Service85 F. Supp. 2d 939 (W.D. Mo. 1999)
  5. In re Marriage of Daniels607 N.E.2d 1255 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)
  6. James Cleary v. Federal Bureau of Investigation811 F.2d 421 (8th Cir. 1987)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list