395 F.Supp.3d 116
D.D.C.2019Background
- King & Spalding submitted FOIA requests to HHS and DOJ for records submitted by any third party about Abiomed between Jan–Oct 2012; an anonymous source via counsel allegedly provided information to the government during a 2012 investigation of Abiomed.
- Defendants initially released many pages but withheld portions under FOIA Exemptions 4, 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(D); Plaintiff challenged withholdings, narrowing disputes to the names of the attorneys and the law firm that represented the anonymous source.
- Earlier rulings: the court rejected the government’s reliance on Exemption 7(D) for many withheld pages and applied a categorical SafeCard rule to allow withholding of the attorneys’ names under Exemption 7(C), while asking defendants to justify withholding the law-firm name.
- Defendants supplemented the record in camera to support non-disclosure of the firm’s name; both parties moved for summary judgment on the firm name, and Plaintiff moved for reconsideration as to the attorneys’ names.
- On reconsideration, the court re-examined whether attorneys (and their firm) had a cognizable personal privacy interest under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) and whether SafeCard’s categorical rule was properly applied in light of Washington Post and later D.C. Circuit decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorneys’ names may be withheld under FOIA Exemption 7(C) (and Exemption 6) | Attorneys’ names are not protected personal information; Washington Post limits 7(C) and business/professional IDs are not categorically private | SafeCard and later cases allow withholding of identifying information in law‑enforcement files to protect personal privacy and reputational harms | Court reversed its prior SafeCard-based withholding: attorneys’ names are not exempt under 7(C) or 6 and must be disclosed |
| Whether law firm name may be withheld because disclosure would identify the attorneys | Firm name disclosure does not implicate a personal privacy interest once attorneys’ names are not protected | Disclosure of the firm could identify and invade the lawyers’ privacy; in camera facts support withholding | Because attorneys’ names are not protected, there is no basis to withhold the firm name; disclosure required |
Key Cases Cited
- SafeCard Servs. v. SEC, 976 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (articulates categorical rule permitting withholding of identifying information in law‑enforcement records absent compelling evidence of agency illegality)
- Wash. Post v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 863 F.2d 96 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (limits Exemption 7(C): information about business judgments and relationships generally not protected as personal privacy)
- McCutchen v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 30 F.3d 183 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (Exemption 7(C) can protect names of investigation targets when stigma and reputational injury are at stake)
- Doe 1 v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 920 F.3d 866 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (reaffirms Washington Post limits; trustee’s representational identity had minimal privacy interest)
- Favish v. U.S. Nat’l Archives & Records Admin., 541 U.S. 157 (2004) (discusses necessity of ‘‘compelling evidence’’ to overcome privacy-based withholding)
- FCC v. AT&T Inc., 562 U.S. 397 (2011) (Exemption 6 and 7(C) protect similar personal privacy interests)