82 F. Supp. 3d 323
D.D.C.2015Background
- STS Energy submitted two FOIA requests (2013, 2014) seeking FERC records about (1) FERC’s Oceanside Power investigation and (2) FERC’s Black Oak decisions; 142 documents remain in dispute (16 Oceanside, 126 Black Oak).
- FERC initially withheld many responsive records but later produced some; the parties cross-moved for summary judgment and STS moved to strike the government’s late filing (denied as moot).
- FERC asserts Exemptions 4 and 7(A) to withhold the 16 Oceanside documents (commercial/confidential and law-enforcement interference grounds).
- FERC asserts Exemption 5 (deliberative-process privilege) to withhold the 126 Black Oak documents in full.
- The court found FERC’s declarations and Vaughn index contain some detail supporting exemption claims but are conclusory or insufficiently specific on key points, particularly on segregability and the specific role each document played in the decisionmaking or investigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 4 shields Oceanside materials | Oceanside info concerns alleged illegal activity; should be disclosed | Info is confidential commercial data; disclosure would harm competitive interests and chill investigations | Exemption 4 likely covers portions, but FERC failed to show no reasonably segregable nonexempt material; summary judgment denied and agency must better justify or segregate |
| Whether Exemption 7(A) protects Oceanside materials | Investigation of Oceanside closed so 7(A) shouldn't apply | Ongoing related enforcement/proceedings could be interfered with; disclosure could reveal scope/strategy | Exemption 7(A) likely applies to some material (ongoing broader investigations), but FERC’s segregability showing is conclusory; summary judgment denied pending better justification |
| Whether Exemption 5 (deliberative-process) shields Black Oak records | Many documents reflect policy and final positions and should be released | Documents are predecisional and deliberative internal communications protected by the privilege | FERC did not provide enough particularized description of decisionmaking process or document role; cannot establish both predecisional and deliberative elements for each record; summary judgment denied |
| Whether FERC met FOIA segregability requirement for withheld records | STS: nonexempt portions exist and must be released | FERC: withheld portions are inextricably intertwined or meaningless if segregated | Court: FERC’s conclusory, boilerplate statements on non-segregability are inadequate across both requests; agency must provide detailed segregability justification or release segregable material |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136 (agency bears FOIA burden)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (agency affidavits must describe withheld records with specific detail)
- SafeCard Servs. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (agency declarations entitled to good-faith presumption but must be non-conclusory)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (segregability requirement; non-exempt portions must be disclosed)
- Nat'l Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (Exemption 4 confidentiality standard)
- Mapother v. Dep't of Justice, 3 F.3d 1533 (Exemption 7(A) requires pending or reasonably anticipated enforcement proceedings)
- Juarez v. Dep't of Justice, 518 F.3d 54 (release may interfere with enforcement; standard for 7(A))
- Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep't of Energy, 617 F.2d 854 (deliberative-process privilege protects predecisional, deliberative communications)