Fabiano v. McIntyre , 146 F. App'x 549 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2005 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    7-13-2005
    Fabiano v. McIntyre
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 04-2734
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
    Recommended Citation
    "Fabiano v. McIntyre" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 857.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/857
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    NO. 04-2734
    ________________
    ELEANOR R. FABIANO,
    Appellant
    v.
    THOMAS J. MCINTYRE, Chief of Freedom of Information and
    Privacy Act Unit; RICHARD L. HUFF, Co Director of Office of
    Information and Privacy; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION;
    *UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    *As Amended by Clerk's Order dated 7/16/04
    _______________________________________
    On Appeal From the United States District Court
    For the District of New Jersey
    (D.C. Civ. No. 03-cv-00420)
    District Judge: Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez
    _______________________________________
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    July 1, 2005
    Before: SLOVITER, BARRY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    (Filed: July 13, 2005)
    _______________________
    OPINION
    _______________________
    PER CURIAM
    Eleanor R. Fabiano appeals from the order of the United States District Court for
    the District of New Jersey granting summary judgment in favor of the United States
    Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in this Freedom of
    Information Act (FOIA) action. We will affirm.
    Fabiano, relying on the FOIA, sought information relating to the prosecution and
    conviction of her son, John Fabiano, for child pornography. Specifically, she requested
    the computer code names used in the FBI’s “Innocent Images” investigation, the real
    names of the two individuals using the code names “BearapinSt” and “Herman4321,” and
    the identity of a person using the code name “Mendy13,” “Mindy13,” or “Mandy13.”
    Although the defendants released several documents, they asserted that some material
    was exempt from disclosure under Exemption (b)(7)(C), 
    5 U.S.C. § 552
    (b)(7)(C). The
    District Court agreed and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
    We agree with the District Court that the defendants are permitted to withhold
    information relating to the names of certain individuals. As explained by the District
    Court, the release of such information could reasonably be expected to constitute an
    unreasonable invasion of privacy that is not outweighed by the public interest in
    disclosure. See Manna v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 
    51 F.3d 1158
    , 1166 (3d Cir. 1995). On
    appeal, Fabiano challenges the failure to release the code names used by the FBI in its
    investigation of her son. However, the FBI informed Fabiano that it could not locate a
    2
    list of code names in its “Innocent Images” files. The FBI cannot release information that
    it does not have. Moreover, even if the defendants could identify the individuals
    associated with the code names, their identities could legitimately be withheld under
    Exemption (b)(7)(C).
    For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
    Appellees’ motion for summary affirmance is denied as moot.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-2734

Citation Numbers: 146 F. App'x 549

Filed Date: 7/13/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023