Dog Bite: A Major Malfunction

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to defendant Department of Homeland Security in a FOIA case brought by Judicial Watch over bites inflicted by President Biden’s dog Major

This Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) matter is the second of three concerning photos depicting dog bites suffered by Special Agents in the Secret Service’s Presidential Protective Detail, caused by the family dog of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The Court first addressed this issue in Judicial Watch, Inc., v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Case No. 1:21 cv01194-CKK (D.D.C. June 28, 2023) (“Judicial Watch I”), concluding that Defendant’s withholdings complied with FOIA Exemption 7(C). The Court confronts the same question here. Seeing no material differences between these two cases, and upon consideration of the pleadings, the relevant legal authority, and the entire record, the Court shall GRANT Defendant’s [14] Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY Plaintiff’s [16] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

Public interest

Plaintiff’s articulation of the public’s significant interest in the photographs is not compelling. Released emails contain descriptions of the incidents, which disclose the extent of the injuries sustained. MSJ, Ex. 3-6. Moreover, the relevant inquiry “should focus not on the general public interest in the subject matter of the FOIA request, but rather on the incremental value of the specific information being withheld.” Schrecker v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 349 F.3d 657, 661 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Nor does disclosure of the photographs add significant additional light to the public’s understanding of these minor incidents from more than two years ago. Plaintiff’s mere recitation that disclosure would be significant does not “articulate a public interest sufficient to outweigh an individuals’ privacy interest.” See Lindsey, 490 F. Supp. 3d at 18; see also Pinson, 236 F. Supp. 3d at 367. As such, Plaintiff does not meet its burden in articulating why the photographs would address a significant public interest sufficient to outweigh the Special Agents’ privacy interests.

(Mike Frisch)