This case is ultimately about privacy.

We are here today as a result of a tragic accident at a construction site that killed four workers. The plaintiff seeks to manipulate

FOIAs generous provisions as an authority to violate personal privacy. This goes directly
against FOIAs noble intentions, and the government is rightfully invoking exemption 6 to protect the families of those who died.

Analysis of contested exemption 6 claims proceed by looking to potential privacy interests at stake, then to possible public gains from disclosure, and ultimately balancing the two

Here, the government protects 2 interests of individuals by denying plaintiffs request: First, the government protects the families right to freely choose how to mourn

and remember, and protection from media intrusions into their personal lives. These substantial interests are not outweighed by the public interests plaintiff puts forth. First, the government is entitled to a presumption of legitimacy in determining that the video does not reveal any information about the cause of the accident. Moreover, as the plaintiff recognizes, there are 21 other sites under the same program which the public may look to for information about the
agencys performance of its duties regarding expenditure of public funds and supervision of construction sites.

Disclosure will intrude on the right to mourn and remember by causing additional

anguish

and influence the memories themselves. The law grants particular respect for privacy in family matters, the foundation of legal recognition of privacy rights, and recognizes the significant relational intimacy of the connections involved. Few family matters can have more impact or be more intimate than the death of one of its members, especially under these tragic
circumstances. The families rights to autonomy entitled to freely choose how to cope with this loss and mourn independent of others influence. Disclosing the video will, at a minimum, emphasize

the circumstances of their deaths and their occupations, which comes at the expense of other qualities for instance, the quality of their character or their role as a
father. The families right to mourn must be protected, and disclosure would violate that right by forcing the families to acknowledge things that they are entitled to de-emphasize, or refuse to acknowledge all together. The right to mourn includes the right to choose

when to return to emotional

tranquility. The very knowledge that the video is publicly available will influence this decision as

well. Disclosure would require the families to be armed against exposure to record of the last moments of their loved ones lives at all times. The media bombardment. The plaintiff

attention surrounding the accident inflates the

likelihood of this intrusion and subjects them to the possibility of further invasions, including public

acknowledges the emotional significance of the

video by desiring to use it as an example of the need its work. Plaintiff also admits its intention to use the video in advertising, its new report, making return of national coverage more likely.

The public interest here is negligible. The government is entitled to the presumption that its finding is truedoesnt contain information about the accident. There is no
evidence of bad faith in the record, and plaintiff does not make that allegation The relationship between safety practices of a single construction company, subcontracted by a state that a federal agency granted funds to is

too attenuated to be a true illustration of the

governments performance of its duties. All other interests in disclosure may serve are not site-specific and thus ascertainable through other sources. Although the government is required to provide information within its possession, it is not required to obtain information at the publics request. All

the other bridges are publically accessibleall information regarding is decisionmaking in the plaintiffs brief is available at those sites as well On the balance,

the benefits of adding a single data point to the collection on information from the other 21 sites is outweighed by the substantial privacy invasion that
disclosure would bring to the families

FOIA was enacted to protect the public from harms by the government. The plaintiff cannot manipulate this statute into a tool to inflict harm on individuals. In light of the significant privacy interests at stake, the government upholds FOIAs principles by refusing to disclose the video. The agency should not be entitled to exploit FOIA to capitalize on its emotionally arousing content simply to further its desire to put a face on its promotional political campaign.