Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of the Treasury
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74121
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Judicial Watch sought FOIA documents from Treasury about TARP and OneUnited Bank, alleging potential congressional favoritism.
- Treasury produced hundreds of pages and withheld 209 pages under FOIA exemptions; 13 documents were disputed.
- Disputed documents include internal memoranda, email strings, meeting minutes, and documents from other agencies (FDIC, OCC).
- Treasury shielded documents under Exemptions 4, 5, and 8; Vaughn Indices and in camera review were conducted.
- Court grants summary judgment for Treasury on most documents, except three OFS Investment Committee minutes (headers) which should be released in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 5 deliberative process applies to all disputed documents | Deliberative process is not blanket; need outweighed by public interest. | Deliberative process is unqualified under FOIA and supports withholding. | Exemption 5 applies broadly to the disputed documents. |
| Whether the disputed documents contain reasonably segregable nonexempt factual material | Factual material should be released if segregable. | Nonexempt information is so intertwined with deliberative material that segregation is impracticable in several documents. | Most documents properly withheld; three minutes sections require release of headers (dates and attendees). |
| Whether Exemption 4 covers confidential commercial/financial information from OneUnited | Plaintiff challenges confidentiality rationale. | Information about OneUnited is confidential; disclosure could impair future information sharing and competitive position. | Exemption 4 applied; information likely to cause substantial harm to OneUnited and National Parks prong satisfied (conceded by plaintiff). |
| Whether Exemption 8 covers materials obtained from OneUnited's regulator (FDIC/OCC) | Exemption 8 not tied to specific reports; disclosure should be allowed. | Exemption 8 protects examiner reports and supervisory information as to OneUnited. | Exemption 8 properly applied to the cited materials. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004) (transparency balanced against protecting privacy and integrity of investigations)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Department of Justice, 421 U.S. 132 (1975) (exemption scope and discovery-like disclosure standards)
- Tax Analysts v. IRS, 117 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (attorney-client privilege and disclosure context)
- McKinley v. FDIC, 744 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D.D.C. 2010) (Exemption 8/FOIA withholdings due to bank supervisory process)
- In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (deliberative privilege generally not qualified in FOIA context)
- Montrose Chemical Corp. of California v. Train, 491 F.2d 63 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (deliberative process philosophy in FOIA context)