Associated Press v. United States Department of State
Civil Action No. 2015-0345
| D.D.C. | Nov 1, 2016Background
- AP filed a FOIA suit seeking State Department records about the 2011 negotiated civil settlement with BAE Systems and challenged State's partial or full withholdings.
- Parties agreed to resolve disputes over a representative sample of 38 withheld or redacted documents via cross-motions for partial summary judgment.
- The Court reviewed unredacted documents in camera and applied FOIA review standards for summary judgment.
- State invoked FOIA Exemptions 3, 4, 5, and 6 to withhold or redact information; BAES intervened to defend commercial-information withholdings.
- The Court found State produced all reasonably segregable nonexempt material from the sample and upheld the asserted exemptions, granting State and intervenors summary judgment and denying AP’s cross-motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 4 applies to BAES submissions and which standard governs (voluntary vs. compulsory) | AP argued the information should be disclosed; disputed whether voluntary standard applies | State & BAES argued BAES submissions were voluntary commercial information protected by Exemption 4 and meet the Critical Mass standard | Court held BAES submissions were voluntary; Exemption 4 applies under the Critical Mass standard and information is exempt |
| If Exemption 4 withheld info would nonetheless meet the higher Nat'l Parks standard if submissions were involuntary | AP contended stronger protection not warranted | State argued even under involuntary standard disclosure would harm future negotiations/competitive interests | Court found withheld info would meet Nat'l Parks test as well, so withholding valid under either standard |
| Application of Exemptions 3, 5, and 6 to the sample documents | AP challenged specific redactions/withholdings under these exemptions | State maintained these exemptions properly applied to protect privileged, law-enforcement, and privacy-sensitive material | Court agreed State properly invoked Exemptions 3, 5, and 6 for the sample documents |
| Whether State produced all reasonably segregable nonexempt information | AP argued additional nonexempt material remained subject to release | State asserted it released all reasonably segregable material and withheld only exempt content | Court found State produced all reasonably segregable information; no further nonexempt release required |
Key Cases Cited
- Critical Mass Energy Project v. NRC, 975 F.2d 871 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (defines voluntary commercial-information test for Exemption 4)
- Nat'l Parks Conservation Assoc. v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (articulates standard for commercial harm under Exemption 4 when information submitted involuntarily)
- Students Against Genocide v. Dep't of State, 257 F.3d 828 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (agency entitled to summary judgment if documents produced or wholly exempt)
- Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (discusses agency burdens in FOIA summary-judgment context)
- M/A-Com Info. Systems v. U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 656 F. Supp. 691 (D.D.C. 1986) (upholding Exemption 4 for confidential commercial information submitted during settlement negotiations)