[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT SCHEDULED]IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUITORLY TAITZ,Plaintiff - Appellant, v.MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of the SocialSecurity Administration,Defendant - Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) )No. 11-5304 ) ) ) ) ) )

APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE

Appellee respectfully moves for summary affirmance of the district court’sdecision granting summary judgment for the government. Pro se plaintiff Orly Taitzbrought this Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action against the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) seeking information related to several social security numbers,including one that she alleges belongs to President Obama. The SSA released allresponsive documents except for the redacted copy of one social security numberapplication. The district court held that the SSA properly withheld this redactedapplication under FOIA Exemption 6, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), as releasing the redactedapplication would implicate a substantial privacy interest while serving no public interest. The district court subsequently denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

USCA Case #11-5304 Document #1353593 Filed: 01/19/2012 Page 1 of 22

The district court’s decisions are clearly correct, and plaintiff’s appeal presents nosubstantial question warranting full briefing and argument.

See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc.

Stanley

, 819 F.2d 294, 297–98 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Summary disposition is warranted.

STATEMENT1.

On October 4, 2010, plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the SSA seeking various records and posing questions relating to the social security numbers of severalindividuals.

See

D. Ct. Doc. No. 21-4 (“FOIA Request”). The SSA responded toplaintiff’s request on March 2, 2011, and provided additional documents to plaintiff on June 27, 2011.

See

D. Ct. Doc. No. 21-6 (“FOIA Response”); D. Ct. Doc. No. 21-7. The SSA conducted a thorough search in response to plaintiff’s request, and disclosedall responsive documents except for plaintiff’s request for the redacted Form SS-5 forthe living individual who holds the social-security number xxx-xx-4425. FOIA Requestat 7.Form SS-5 is the form an individual uses to apply for a social-security card.

See,e.g.

, http://www.socialsecurity.gov/online/ss-5.html. The SSA withheld the requestedForm SS-5 under FOIA Exemption 6, which protects records from release wheredisclosure “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). In its response to plaintiff’s request, the SSA explained that thePrivacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, protects the personal information of social security 2

USCA Case #11-5304 Document #1353593 Filed: 01/19/2012 Page 2 of 22

number holders. The SSA releases such information to the public only with the holder’sconsent—which the SSA did not have here—or if FOIA requires disclosure. The SSAdetermined that Exemption 6 applied to the Form SS-5 because the information thereincould be used to identify the social security number holder and because plaintiff hadidentified no public interest that would be served by disclosure. FOIA Response at 2.

After filing an administrative appeal, plaintiff brought this suit seeking variousdocuments from the SSA. On August 30, 2011, the district court granted thegovernment’s motion for summary judgment. The court determined that the SSA withheld only one document from plaintiff—the redacted Form SS-5—and that plaintiff did not challenge any other aspect of the SSA’s response to her FOIA request. Op. 5,8. The court held that “[b]ecause the redacted Form SS-5 contains identifying information associated with a living individual’s social security number, its disclosure would compromise a substantial privacy interest.” Op. 5. And the court noted thatplaintiff “identified no legitimate public interest that would be served by disclosure of the requested Form SS-5.” Op. 6. The court concluded that the SSA properly withheldForm SS-5 under Exemption 6.Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, which the district court denied on October17, 2011. The court held that plaintiff had not presented new evidence or demonstratederror. Op. Denying Reconsideration 2-4. Plaintiff appealed the district court’s summary judgment order and its denial of plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.3

USCA Case #11-5304 Document #1353593 Filed: 01/19/2012 Page 3 of 22