stigma of having his name associated with a criminal investigation,” and (2) a “distinct privacy interest in the contents of the investigative files.” Id at 1091-93. Despite the fact that it was widely known that Mr. DeLay had been the subject of an investigation, the Circuit nonetheless concluded that he still retained a privacy interest in further disclosure of the files entirely. Id. In this case, the Court agrees with the plaintiffs assertion that Mrs. Clinton no longer has an interest in “avoiding the stigma” of having her name associated with the criminal investigation at issue, because it is widely known that this investigation was conducted. Pl.’s Opp’n at 20. However, similar to the individuals in American Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Department of Justice, 750 F.3d at 933 (<HOLDING>), Mrs. Clinton has a significant privacy
holding that because plaintiffs would be able to file their case in colombia  plaintiffs concerns as to their safety are more appropriately considered in the private interest factors analysis holding that disclosure of information contained in undercover officers personnel files violated the officers privacy interest in preserving their lives and personal security holding social workers efforts would have been futile in part because father never had a relationship with children initially denied paternity as to both and had previously shown no interest in being a parent holding that the defendants had significant privacy interest in being able to proceed forward with their lives by being able to control information concerning criminal charges never filed against them holding that although the defendant was able to impeach the prosecution in certain respects the suppressed information was material under brady because there was a significant difference between the suppressed material and the information to which the defense had access