Flyers Rights Education Fund, Inc v. Federal Aviation Administration
Civil Action No. 2019-3749
| D.D.C. | Sep 16, 2021Background:
- After two fatal 737 MAX crashes (Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines), the FAA grounded the type and required Boeing to submit design changes for recertification.
- Flyers Rights requested FAA records about Boeing’s 737 MAX design changes, focusing on materials the FAA relied on for the aircraft’s return-to-service.
- The FAA located thousands of pages, parties narrowed scope to 86 responsive records; FAA provided Boeing copies and Boeing identified most documents as proprietary.
- The FAA produced some documents (with limited redactions) and, via a Vaughn Index, withheld or redacted numerous records under FOIA Exemption 4 (trade secrets/confidential commercial information).
- Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment; FAA cross-moved. Plaintiffs mainly argued the materials were not "obtained from a person" or "confidential" under Food Marketing and that some categories were public. FAA relied on declarations, FAA policy, and a longstanding confidentiality practice with Boeing.
- The Court granted the FAA’s cross-motion, holding the agency met its burden to withhold the records under Exemption 4 and to release all reasonably segregable information.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contested records were "obtained from a person" for Exemption 4 | Some documents were "FAA comments" (agency-generated) and thus not "obtained from a person." | The challenged entries incorporate or restate Boeing-originated information; comments were created from Boeing submissions. | Court: FAA showed the material at issue was obtained from Boeing (a "person"). |
| Whether withheld information is "confidential" under Food Marketing | Plaintiffs: FAA failed to show the information was provided under an assurance of privacy; some categories (means of compliance, safety analyses) are public or agency policy. | FAA/Boeing: Boeing treats the material as private; FAA guidance, agreements, and practice provide express and implied assurances of confidentiality; many methods are design-specific and proprietary. | Court: FAA satisfied Food Marketing—information is customarily/actually treated as private and was provided under assurances of privacy. |
| Whether particular categories (means of compliance; safety analyses) are public or proprietary | Plaintiffs: these are standard/agency matters and thus not proprietary. | FAA: some means/safety analyses are design-specific and tightly integrated with Boeing proprietary data. | Court: FAA’s affidavits show these categories include Boeing’s proprietary technical data and are confidential. |
| Segregability — did FAA release all reasonably segregable, non-exempt material? | Plaintiffs argued more should be disclosed. | FAA: performed line-by-line review, released what it could, and provided a Vaughn index and declarations describing redactions. | Court: FAA met segregability obligations; declarations and Vaughn index suffice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (1976) (FOIA’s disclosure purpose and narrow construction of exemptions)
- Critical Mass Energy Project v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 975 F.2d 871 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (balancing disclosure and harm to legitimate interests)
- Multi Ag. Media LLC v. Dep’t of Agriculture, 515 F.3d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (agency bears burden; affidavits can satisfy FOIA withholding if specific)
- Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Dep’t of Defense, 628 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (affidavits must show reasonable specificity and logical relation to claimed exemption)
- Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. Dep’t of State, 641 F.3d 504 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (plausible, uncontradicted affidavits typically prevail)
- Food Marketing Inst. v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019) (defines "confidential" under Exemption 4: customarily/actually treated as private and provided under assurance of privacy)
- Stolt-Nielsen Transp. Grp. v. United States, 534 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (court must address segregability specifically)
- Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Vaughn index and agency declaration can satisfy segregability showing)