at 14-15. In response, Pinson articulates only the vague argument that all of the information withheld under Exemption 7(C) should be disclosed because “the p of “private individuals appearing in files within the ambit of Exemption 7(C)” are categorically exempt from disclosure unless disclosing such information “is necessary in order to confirm or refute compelling evidence that the agency is engaged in illegal activity”). As to the other withheld information, the DOJ has presented sufficient detail to demonstrate that its redactions protect the privacy interests of inmates, staff members, and third-party individuals. In its own independent evaluation, the • Court does not identify any public interest in disclosure that would outweigh that private interest. Cf. Davis, 968 F.2d at 1282 (<HOLDING>); see also 3d Christenson Deck ¶¶ 29-33, 52,
recognizing as a privacy right the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters 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 recognizing the public interest exception holding that bargaining unit employees have some nontrivial privacy interest in nondisclosure of their home addresses under the freedom of information act and concluding that that interest substantially outweighed the virtually nonexistent public interest in disclosure under foia and the privacy act not the nlra holding that even if a particular privacy interest is minor nondisclosure remains justified where  the public interest in disclosure is virtually nonexistent