901 F.3d 343
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- PETA sued HHS under FOIA after HHS disclosed importation records for nonhuman primates but redacted shipment-by-shipment details (quantity by species, crate sizes, and airline carriers). Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- HHS justified redactions under FOIA Exemption 4 as protecting confidential commercial information; HHS submitted declarations from CDC FOIA officer and two importers (WWP, PPI). Several other importers objected to disclosure; three importers initially did not respond.
- The district court ordered disclosure of species names (finding those were widely disclosed elsewhere) but upheld redactions for seven objecting importers as to shipment quantity, crate size, and airline carriers; it initially ordered disclosure for the three nonresponding importers based on an assumption their silence meant consent.
- After judgment, the three nonresponding importers notified HHS they had not received notice and submitted declarations objecting to disclosure. HHS moved under Rule 60(b)(6); the district court granted reconsideration and allowed HHS to withhold their shipment information.
- On appeal, the D.C. Circuit reviewed (1) de novo the summary-judgment rulings on Exemption 4 issues and (2) for abuse of discretion the Rule 60(b)(6) grant, and affirmed: shipment-by-shipment quantity, crate size, and airline carrier information are confidential under Exemption 4 and the Rule 60(b)(6) relief for the three previously nonresponding importers was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether shipment-by-shipment quantity data is confidential under Exemption 4 | PETA: public USDA inventory snapshots make shipment data non-confidential; importers’ failure to request redactions for many documents undermines confidentiality claims | HHS: shipment quantities reveal importers’ supply chains, capacity, and market volume; disclosure would cause substantial competitive harm | Held: Confidential — disclosure would likely cause substantial competitive injury; Exemption 4 applies |
| Whether crate-size information is confidential | PETA: crate sizes vary and do not reliably reveal quantity or species | HHS: crate dimensions routinely correlate with capacity/quantity and thus reveal business-sensitive volume data | Held: Confidential — crate-size data can reveal quantity and was properly withheld |
| Whether airline-carrier identities are confidential | PETA: airlines willing to carry primates are commonly known, so disclosure is harmless | HHS: knowing which carrier an importer uses on particular routes reveals supplier country, routes, and business relationships that competitors could exploit | Held: Confidential — shipment-level carrier info reveals supply-chain relationships and was properly withheld |
| Whether district court abused its discretion in granting Rule 60(b)(6) to permit withholding for three nonresponding importers | PETA: Exemption 4 is objective; district should not rely on importer assertions and HHS shouldn’t get relief after judgment | HHS: nonresponding importers subsequently showed they were not notified and would be harmed; reconsideration was needed to avoid manifest injustice to third parties | Held: No abuse of discretion — district reasonably concluded silence was misinterpreted and relief to protect third parties was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. NASA, 180 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir.) (Exemption 4 protects confidential commercial information causing substantial competitive harm)
- Nat’l Parks & Conserv. Ass’n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir.) (two-part test for confidentiality when disclosure is compelled by statute: harm to government’s ability to obtain info or substantial competitive injury)
- Critical Mass Energy Project v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 975 F.2d 871 (D.C. Cir.) (application of National Parks test)
- Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. FDA, 704 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir.) (showing competition and likelihood of substantial injury; no sophisticated economic analysis required)
- Trans-Pacific Policing Agreement v. U.S. Customs Service, 177 F.3d 1022 (D.C. Cir.) (shipment-level disclosure of origin, cost, and volume likely causes competitive injury)
- Watkins v. U.S. Bureau of Customs & Border Prot., 643 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir.) (supply-chain and shipment-quantity disclosures present substantial competitive injury)
- Gilda Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. Bureau, 457 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D.D.C.) (pairing importers to specific products over time gives competitors actionable business intelligence)
- Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 169 F.3d 16 (D.C. Cir.) (information already public cannot be confidential under Exemption 4)
- CNA Fin. Corp. v. Donovan, 830 F.2d 1132 (D.C. Cir.) (requirement to show actual competition and likelihood of substantial injury)
- Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris, 636 F.2d 572 (D.C. Cir.) (standards for Rule 60(b) relief)
- Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 841 F.2d 1133 (D.C. Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 60(b) and factors for reconsideration)