See Kimberlin v. Dep’t of Justice, 139 F.3d 944, 949 (D.C.Cir.) (“although government officials, as we have stated before, may have a ‘somewhat diminished’ privacy interest, they ‘do not surrender all rights to personal privacy when they accept a public appointment’ ”) (quoting Quinon v. FBI, 86 F.3d 1222, 1230 (D.C.Cir.1996)). See also Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 170-171, 124 S.Ct. 1570, 158 L.Ed.2d 319 (2004) (explaining that FOIA recognizes a surviving family members’ right to personal privacy with respect to their close relative’s death, including high-profile deaths such as the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.); Consumers’ Checkbook v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 554 F.3d 1046, 1055 (D.C.Cir. 2009) (<HOLDING>). Applying this principle, courts in this
recognizing such balance of interests recognizing the privacy interests when requested documents neither confirm nor refute the plaintiffs allegations of government misconduct holding that court may seal documents if publics right of access is outweighed by competing interests holding that privacy interests outweighed public interests even though the public is already familiar with certain aspects of the requested data holding that the right of privacy does not attach to matters already within the public domain