436 F.Supp.3d 206
D.D.C.2020Background
- Niskanen Center filed a FOIA request to FERC seeking "any and all" records identifying private landowners affected by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP), including specific landowner lists.
- FERC produced several lists but redacted names and addresses of private individuals under FOIA Exemption 6, while disclosing commercial and government entity information.
- Niskanen administratively appealed FERC’s withholdings; FERC affirmed redactions and later produced a limited, corrected list; Niskanen sued for improper withholding.
- At a status conference, FERC offered to disclose landowners’ initials and street names (but not street numbers or full addresses); Niskanen sought full names and addresses.
- Court evaluated whether Exemption 6 applied (balancing privacy vs. public interest) and whether any nonexempt information remained segregable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FERC properly withheld private landowners’ full names and addresses under FOIA Exemption 6 | Niskanen: public interest in confirming FERC’s compliance with notice requirements outweighs privacy interests; full disclosure needed to cross-check notices | FERC: release of full names/addresses would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy; limited disclosure (initials + street names) protects privacy while serving public interest | Court: Exemption 6 applies to full names/addresses; privacy interest is substantial; limited disclosure (initials + street names) adequately balances interests and is sufficient for public oversight |
| Whether any reasonably segregable, nonexempt information remains that FERC must disclose | Niskanen: agency should segregate and disclose nonexempt portions of lists | FERC: already released nonexempt material; withheld only full names and street numbers which are exempt | Court: Given ordered limited disclosure, remaining withheld elements are the full names and street numbers; no additional segregable nonexempt information need be produced |
Key Cases Cited
- DOJ v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (FOIA public-interest inquiry focuses on shedding light on agency conduct)
- Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004) (once disclosed, records belong to public; courts consider broad dissemination risks)
- Nat’l Ass’n of Retired Fed. Emps. v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (individuals have significant privacy interest in avoiding unlimited disclosure of name and address)
- Multi Ag Media LLC v. Dep’t of Agriculture, 515 F.3d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Exemption 6 requires that privacy invasion be more than de minimis)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F.3d 141 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (recognizing privacy threats from release of names and addresses)
- Valfells v. CIA, 717 F. Supp. 2d 110 (D.D.C. 2010) (agency must justify non-segregability with detailed explanation)