20 F.4th 787
D.C. Cir.2021Background
- Atlantic Coast Pipeline applicants compiled lists of landowners along the proposed route and submitted them to FERC as part of certificate/notice procedures.
- Niskanen Center sought those lists under FOIA to evaluate whether affected landowners had been properly notified.
- FERC withheld full names and street addresses under FOIA Exemption 6, but offered a limited disclosure of landowners’ initials and street names.
- The district court ordered FERC’s conditional summary-judgment proposal (produce initials and street names), finding full names/addresses unnecessary to Niskanen’s stated purpose.
- Niskanen appealed; the D.C. Circuit reviewed de novo whether the incremental public interest in full names/addresses outweighed the privacy burden of disclosure.
- The court affirmed: landowners have a substantial privacy interest in names/addresses and the incremental public value of full disclosure was minimal given the requested purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disclosure of landowners’ full names and addresses is barred by FOIA Exemption 6 | Niskanen: needs full names/addresses to compare with public records and verify notice | FERC: names/addresses implicate substantial privacy interests; initials and street names suffice | Court: substantial privacy interest exists; full names/addresses not justified; Exemption 6 protects withheld info |
| Whether limited disclosure (initials + street names) satisfies public-interest needs | Niskanen: full addresses sometimes necessary (e.g., shared initials) | FERC: limited disclosure provides sufficient incremental information to evaluate agency action | Court: initials and street names provide the incremental value needed; limited disclosure affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (explains FOIA public-interest/privac y framework)
- Department of Defense v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487 (recognizes privacy interest in nondisclosure of home addresses)
- Department of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595 (records ‘‘apply to a particular individual’’ for Exemption 6)
- Schrecker v. Department of Justice, 349 F.3d 657 (inquiry focuses on incremental value of withheld information)
- Multi Ag Media LLC v. Dep’t of Agriculture, 515 F.3d 1224 (threshold for substantial privacy interest)
- Nat’l Ass’n of Retired Fed. Employees v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873 (privacy risk from solicitation/unwanted contact)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F.3d 141 (names/addresses commonly implicate Exemption 6)
- Carter v. Dep’t of Commerce, 830 F.2d 388 (requester must show how redacted info advances public understanding)