the release of which would ‘create a palpable threat to privac/ ”) (quoting Carter v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 830 F.2d 388, 391 (D.C.Cir. 1987)). Accordingly, the Court finds that the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the withheld documents are not insubstantial and have not been eliminated because they may be known in some capacity to Plaintiff. The Court must now review whether these privacy interests are outweighed by the public interest in the information associated with them. As set forth above, Ms. Suzuki asserted that the requested information “does not shed light on how CBP performs its statutory duties,” Suzuki Decl. ¶26, which is the only relevant public interest at issue. See Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. at 775, 109 S.Ct. 1468 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff argues that “the release of the
holding that the disclosure is a public disclosure within the meaning of the fca if the the prior public disclosure  contained enough information to enable the government to pursue an investigation against the defendant holding that where an authorized disclosure is voluntarily made to a nonfederal party whether or not that disclosure is denominated confidential the government waives any claim that the information is exempt from disclosure under the deliberative process privilege holding that the government must provide the party seeking disclosure with a detailed index describing the documents the government claims are exempt from disclosure under foia holding that the only relevant public interest in disclosure is the extent to which disclosure would serve the core purpose of the foia which is contributing significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government  holding that foia exemptions are not mandatory bars to disclosure because the purpose of foia is to provide broad disclosure of government documents