Southern Alliance for Clean Energy v. United States Department of Energy
853 F. Supp. 2d 60
D.D.C.2012Background
- SACE requests records from DOE under FOIA relating to VEGP Vogtle project and final term sheets issued in Feb 2010.
- DOE produced some records in batches from 2010 to 2011 and asserted Exemptions 4, 5, and 6 for redacted portions.
- Part I information concerns Part I submissions; final term sheets were negotiated but binding only upon a definitive loan guarantee agreement.
- This court consolidated cross-motions for partial and full summary judgment on Exemption 4 as it applies to term sheets, and later on Exemptions 4, 5, and 6 for other records.
- Judge Lamberth ordered DOE to revise Vaughn indices to provide more detailed, specific justification for redactions and to address whether information was obtained from the applicants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 4 applies to term-sheet redactions | DOE failed to show redactions were obtained from applicants | Vaughn indices show confidential, commercially sensitive information and some are obtained from applicants | Eleven redactions were obtained from applicants and confidential; others require revisions; overall Exemption 4 not fully satisfied; must revise indices |
| Adequacy of Vaughn indices for Exemption 4 | Indices lack specific facts tying redactions to Exemption 4 requirements | Indices plus declarations establish claimed exemptions | Indices largely inadequate; must be revised with detailed origin of each redacted item |
| Whether Exemption 5 (deliberative process) supports redactions | DOE failed to show predecisional and deliberative basis for many redactions | Some redactions are clearly predecisional and deliberative | Most Exemption 5 redactions inadequate; some categories proper; require revisions with more detail |
| Whether Exemption 4,5 redactions are properly segregated and whether non-exempt material was released | Non-exempt material should be disclosed; agency redactions too broad | Non-exempt portions were properly segregated | Non-exempt materials must be produced where not justified; court to review after revised indices |
Key Cases Cited
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (de novo FOIA review and need for nonconclusory affidavits)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (reasonable search and adequacy of agency methods)
- National Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (confidentiality standards under Exemption 4)
- Gulf & West Indus. v. U.S., 615 F.2d 527 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (information may be exempt if obtained from a person or capable of extrapolation)
- Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. FDA, 704 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (considerations of competitive harm and deference to agency predictions)
- United Technologies Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 601 F.3d 557 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (deference to agency estimate-based harm in Exemption 4)
- King v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 830 F.2d 210 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (specificity required in Vaughn-style index)
- Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (detailed, category-based justification for Exemption 4 and 5)