C. 7(C)

“…could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

As an initial matter, you should note that — like Exemption 6 — Exemption 7(C) requires an agency to weigh the privacy interest in withholding records against the public interest in their release. For that reason, as one court has stated, “[t]he privacy inquiries under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) are ‘essentially the same.’”⁷⁰ Agencies often invoke both Exemptions 6 and 7(C) in denying requests where law enforcement records are concerned, so you should be prepared to challenge both.

However, you should note some key differences between them. Exemption 7(C)’s withholding threshold is lower than Exemption 6, as it prevents the release of records that could result in an unwarranted personal privacy invasion, rather than those that would result in such an invasion. Further, while Exemption 6 requires an agency to show that release would result in a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” that modifier — “clearly” — does not appear in Exemption 7(C). Instead, 7(C) uses the term “reasonably be expected to.”

Consequently, where an agency invokes both Exemptions 7(C) and 6 to justify withholdings and law enforcement records are at issue, an agency may decline to rely on (and a court may decline to analyze) the Exemption 6 claim since “[t]he balancing under Exemption 7(C) is more protective of privacy interests than under Exemption 6 . . . and because Exemption 7(C) is broader than Exemption 6.”⁷¹ Therefore, where an agency invokes both Exemptions 6 and 7(C) with respect to the same records, it is particularly important to make strong arguments countering the agency’s 7(C) claims as they would, if successful, also overcome the Exemption 6 claims.