McKinley v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
268 F. Supp. 3d 234
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Vern McKinley filed two FOIA requests (Feb 2015) seeking FDIC records about consideration of placing Citibank into receivership and analyses of Citibank’s solvency (Oct 2008–Apr 2009); FDIC located 19 responsive records and withheld them under FOIA Exemptions 4, 5, and 8.
- McKinley administratively appealed, arguing the FDIC provided insufficient detail to justify the exemptions and possibly waived exemptions by prior disclosures; the FDIC denied the appeal and McKinley sued.
- FDIC produced a Vaughn index and a declaration (Hugo Zia) and asserted all 19 records were exempt; McKinley narrowed his challenge to 12 withheld documents and does not contest the adequacy of the search.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. FDIC contended exemptions were properly applied and no segregable non-exempt information existed; McKinley argued the agency’s justifications were conclusory and inadequate.
- The Court found the Vaughn index and declaration lacked the required, document-specific factual detail to evaluate Exemptions 4, 5, and 8 and ordered supplemental submissions and in camera submission of the 12 disputed documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FDIC met its burden to justify Exemption 4 with sufficient detail | McKinley: FDIC failed to state whether information was voluntarily or compulsorily provided by Citibank and gave only conclusory labels | FDIC: The documents contain confidential commercial/financial information obtained from Citibank and thus fall under Exemption 4 | Court: Denied summary judgment — FDIC must specify how the information was obtained (voluntary vs. compelled) and apply the correct confidentiality test before exemption can be evaluated |
| Whether FDIC met its burden to justify Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege) | McKinley: Vaughn index and declaration are conclusory; agency didn’t tie documents to definable decisionmaking processes or show predecisional/deliberative nature | FDIC: Documents include predecisional deliberations and recommendations about potential FDIC actions regarding Citibank | Court: Denied — FDIC must identify the specific deliberative process, the document’s role/function in it, and authors/recipients’ decisionmaking authority/chain-of-command for each withheld document |
| Whether FDIC met its burden to justify Exemption 8 (examination/operating/condition reports) | McKinley: FDIC only parrots statutory language and fails to say whether documents are reports or merely related to reports or which type they implicate | FDIC: The records are contained in or related to examination/condition reports and comprise supervisory/examination information protected by Exemption 8 | Court: Denied — FDIC must state for each document whether it is contained in or related to a report and specify whether it ties to an examination, operating, or condition report |
| Remedy and process (segregability, in camera review, further filings) | McKinley: Agency has not met disclosure obligations; court should compel detailed justification and production of non-exempt portions | FDIC: Maintains records are entirely exempt | Held: Court ordered FDIC to provide a revised Vaughn index and/or supplemental declaration that addresses the identified deficiencies, to lodge the 12 disputed documents for in camera review, and set a briefing schedule; both summary judgment motions denied without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (agency affidavits must be non-conclusory)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (explain withheld information with reasonably specific detail)
- Weisberg v. Dep’t of Justice, 627 F.2d 365 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (agency must show each requested document is produced, unidentifiable, or wholly exempt)
- Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (conclusory/generalized exemption claims unacceptable)
- Pub. Emps. For Envtl. Responsibility v. EPA, 213 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2016) (requirements for Vaughn/declaration specificity)
- McKinley v. FDIC, 756 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2010) (distinguishing tests for Exemption 4 based on voluntary vs. compulsory disclosure)
- Pub. Inv’rs Arbitration Bar Ass’n v. SEC, 771 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (scope and purpose of Exemption 8)
- Coastal States Gas v. Dep’t of Energy, 617 F.2d 854 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (agency must explain the deliberative process and role of documents)
- King v. Dep’t of Justice, 830 F.2d 210 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (court must be able to make a rational decision based on agency submissions)
- Spirko v. U.S. Postal Serv., 147 F.3d 992 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (in camera inspection and other remedies available when agency explanations are inadequate)