Christopher W. Madel v. U.S. Department of Justice, 784 F.3d 448

Christopher Madel filed FOIA requests to DEA (Nov 2012 & Feb 2013) seeking oxycodone distribution data for five distributors and seven ARCOS reports; DEA acknowledged but delayed response and requested processing fees.
DEA produced some ARCOS reports (2, 3, 4, 5, 7) but withheld five documents in full under FOIA Exemption 4: ARCOS report 1 (detailed distributions by three-digit ZIP to retail registrants) and four company-specific Georgia spreadsheets identifying buyers, locations, and quantities.
The four companies received notice and objected to disclosure; DEA relied on a declaration from its FOIA chief (Katherine Myrick) asserting likely substantial competitive harm from disclosure.
District court granted summary judgment for DEA, holding the withheld documents exempt and that no segregable nonexempt information existed; denied declaratory/injunctive relief and attorney fees.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reviewed Exemption 4 application de novo, upheld Exemption 4 findings but found the district court erred by failing to make an express segregability finding, and remanded for that determination and related relief issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether withheld documents qualify as "confidential" under FOIA Exemption 4	Madel: information not "confidential"; public interest/no rebuttal to DEA's harm claim	DEA: disclosure would cause substantial competitive harm (market share, inventory, targeting, undermining anti-diversion)	Court: DEA met its burden; affidavit linked specific harms to documents — Exemption 4 applies
Whether agency affidavits were sufficiently specific (non-conclusory) to justify Exemption 4 withholding	Madel: DEA's declaration is conclusory per out-of-circuit authority	DEA: Declaration provided concrete examples of harms and linked to withheld data; companies also objected	Held: DEA's declaration was specific enough; summary judgment on exemption was proper
Whether nonexempt information was reasonably segregable from withheld documents	Madel: DEA failed to segregate; court made no express segregability finding	DEA: withheld in full; argued nonsegregable due to linkage between entries and competitive harm	Held: District court erred by not making an express segregability finding; remanded for express analysis
Whether denial of declaratory/injunctive relief and attorney fees should stand	Madel: relief and fees warranted if segregability or exemption findings defective	DEA: relief and fees not warranted given exemption finding	Held: Because segregability requires remand, related denials reversed and remanded as well

Missouri Coal. for Env’t Found. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 542 F.3d 1204 (8th Cir. 2008) (FOIA segregability and agency burden rules)
In re DOJ, 999 F.2d 1302 (8th Cir. 1993) (government must disclose unless a specific exemption applies)
Miller v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 779 F.2d 1378 (8th Cir. 1985) (agencies must provide affidavits correlating exemptions to document portions; no barren assertions)
Contract Freighters, Inc. v. Sec’y of U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 260 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 2001) (definition of "confidential" commercial information)
Critical Mass Energy Project v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 975 F.2d 871 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (standard for voluntarily provided information)
Quiñon v. FBI, 86 F.3d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (limits on conclusory affidavits)
Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (two-part test for confidentiality: impair future supply or cause substantial competitive harm)
Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (district court must make express segregability finding)
Juarez v. DOJ, 518 F.3d 54 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (appellate courts may in some instances decide segregability on record without remand)