Bibles
Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. Bibles
Opinion
Dissenting Opinion
Fernandez, J.
dissenting:
Once again we are asked to bridle at and practically ignore the FOIA teachings of the United States Supreme Court. See United States Dep’t of Defense v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487 ,-, 114 S.Ct. 1006, 1012 , 127 L.Ed.2d 325 (1994); United States Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 771-73 , 109 S.Ct. 1468, 1481 , 103 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989). Once again we are asked to allow curiosity and gain to trump privacy. We should decline the invitations.
One thing is certain. The information that a mailing list will give the public about what the government is up to. is minuscule or nil, most likely the latter. That the BLM is sending out mailers is a fact well known, and if any person wishes to know what is in the mailers he need only ask for them. However, it tells us nothing about government when we discover that the mailer went to John Doe in New York or Billy Rowe in Los Angeles. ONDA does not really want to check on the government; it wants to contact the people on the list.
Another certainty is that a list does convey more information about the recipient than a mere name and address. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and ONDA desires…
Lead Opinion
Schroeder, J.
This is a Freedom of Information Act suit brought by an Oregon non-profit association, interested in desert preservation, against the Oregon Director of the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”). The suit requests the names and addresses of persons who receive the BLM’s newsletter. The newsletter provides information about the BLM’s activities and plans affecting the Oregon desert. Plaintiff, the Oregon Natural Dessert Association (“ONDA”), according to its complaint, made its Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request to learn to whom the government was directing “selected” information about the high desert, so that ONDA could *1170 provide those persons with more complete information.
The BLM originally refused to release any portion of the list, invoking exemption 6 of the Freedom of Information Act, which protects files whose disclosure would constitute “a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(6)(C)(b)(6). The ONDA appealed that decision to the Department of the Interior. The Department of the Interi- or concluded that the names and addresses of organizations should be released, but that the names and addresses of private individuals were protected by…