in question is a chain of emails between McDonald and Knotts that was forwarded to a deputy sheriff, and intercepted during an investigation of that deputy. The only information in the emails related to the deputy sheriff was redacted for purposes of presentation during the hearing in McDonald’s disciplinary case. The evidence contained no personal information about the deputy sheriff, and therefore was not a personnel record, i.e. it was not related to “ ‘the hiring, discipline, promotion, dismissal, or any matter involving an employee’s status.’” Shropshire, 420 Md. at 378, 23 A.3d at 215 (quoting Kirwan v. The Diamondback, 352 Md. 74, 83, 721 A.2d 196, 200 (1998)); see also Md. Dep't of State Police v. Md. State Conf. of NAACP Branches, 430 Md. 179, 195, 59 A.3d 1037, 1046 (2013) (<HOLDING>). We conclude, therefore, that the hearing
holding that exemption 7c protects the privacy interests of all persons mentioned in law enforcement records whether they be investigators suspects witnesses or informants and their names are generally exempt from disclosure   holding that personnel records or conduct investigative records regarding police officers are exempt from disclosure under virginias freedom of information act which exempts personnel records from disclosure holding that the names of thirdparty inmates within memoranda were categorically exempt from disclosure absent compelling evidence of illegal activity by the bop holding that records regarding complaints against state police officers which would be exempt from disclosure when unredacted where no longer exempt after the names of state police troopers the names of complainants and all identifying information were redacted holding that names and address of private individuals appearing in files within the ambit of exemption 7c  are exempt from disclosure