McKinley v. Federal Deposit Insurance
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135965
| D.D.C. | 2010Background
- McKinley, a private citizen, filed three FOIA requests to the FDIC in Dec 2009 about the TLG program and FDIC determinations (Citigroup Oct 2008; TLG Oct 2008; Bank of America Jan 2009) including meeting minutes or memos.
- FDIC did not respond within statutory deadlines, prompting McKinley to file suit in March 2010.
- FDIC produced 101 pages on Apr 15, 2010 but with redactions under FOIA and Sunshine Act exemptions.
- FDIC moved to dismiss the case as moot; McKinley opposed mootness and moved for summary judgment challenging search adequacy and withholding.
- The court denied the mootness dismissal, granted summary judgment on search adequacy in favor of McKinley to require new or better declarations, and denied summary judgment on exemptions without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the case moot after production? | McKinley maintains ongoing disputes over redactions and search adequacy. | FDIC argues production moots the case. | Not moot; disputes over search and redactions remain. |
| Was the FDIC's search for records adequate? | Declaration insufficient to show search method and personnel; executive secretary search not justified. | FDIC contends search was reasonable. | Summary judgment for McKinley on search adequacy; FDIC must conduct new searches or provide adequate declarations. |
| Were the FDIC's withholding determinations properly justified under Exemption 4 and 5? | Vaughn index/records do not demonstrate proper withholding or voluntary vs mandatory disclosure. | Exemptions 4 and 5 apply to protect confidential information and deliberative materials. | Withholding insufficiently justified; exemptions analyzed but not conclusively upheld; remand for further explanation. |
| Was Exemption 8 and Exemption 9 properly applied to the withheld materials? | Record lacks specificity about examined materials and their relation to Exemption 8/9. | Exemptions cover examination/condition reports and premature/endangerment concerns. | Record insufficiently developed to sustain exemptions; remand for adequate justification. |
| Is segregability satisfied? | Non-exempt material should be released where possible. | Exempt portions are properly withheld. | Segregability not demonstrated; remand to determine release of reasonably segregable information. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C.Cir. 1982) (FOIA non-disclosures may remain unless records are fully produced or properly exempt)
- Iturralde v. Comptroller of the Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C.Cir. 2003) (describes adequacy of searches and what constitutes a reasonable search)
- King v. Dep't of Justice, 830 F.2d 210 (D.C.Cir. 1987) (requires detailed explanation to support withholding under Exemption 4)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F.3d 141 (D.C.Cir. 2006) (predecisional and deliberative material must be adequately described)
- Petroleum Info. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 976 F.2d 1429 (D.C.Cir. 1992) (summary judgment on exemptions requires material falls outside the proffered exemption)
- Tax Analysts v. Internal Revenue Serv., 492 U.S. 136 (Supreme Court 1989) (burden on agency to justify withholding under FOIA)