Watkins v. US BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER
643 F.3d 1189
9th Cir.2011Background
- Watkins, appearing pro se, seeks FOIA records for 19 C.F.R. § 133.21(c) Notices of Seizure from multiple ports (SF, Miami, El Paso, Seattle, Newark/NY, LA/Long Beach, Boston).
- Watkins alleges no or inadequate responses from several ports and seeks to limit requests due to high processing fees.
- Notices of Seizure contain seizure data (date, port, description, quantity, origin, exporter/importer, and sometimes manufacturer) and are disclosed to trademark holders; notices may be redacted under exemptions.
- CBP, now within DHS, relies on DHS fee regulations (6 C.F.R. § 5.11) but CBP had maintained 19 C.F.R. § 103 fee provisions; district court held DHS regs control but CBP’s older fee provisions remained in effect.
- CBP redacted information under Exemption 4 (trade secrets) and argued disclosure would cause substantial competitive harm; CBP disclosed Notices to trademark owners and sought a protective order; district court granted summary judgment for CBP on Exemption 4 and protective order but indicative fee relief was remanded.
- Court affirms Exemption 4 ruling and reverses on fees, remanding for appropriate relief; majority and dissents address whether disclosure to trademark owners constitutes waiver of Exemption 4.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 4 protects the Notices of Seizure from disclosure. | Watkins argues the data is not confidential trade information. | CBP asserts the notices contain confidential commercial information and may cause competitive harm. | Exemption 4 applies; notices are confidential and may cause substantial harm. |
| Whether CBP waived Exemption 4 by disclosing notices to trademark owners. | Waiver not acknowledged; disclosure limited and not public domain. | Disclosures to trademark owners without limits constitute waiver. | CBP waived Exemption 4 by no-strings-attached disclosure to trademark owners. |
| Whether CBP's FOIA fee calculations were lawful under DHS vs CBP regulations. | CBP should follow its pre-DHS fee provisions (19 C.F.R. § 103). | DHS regulations control as a component of DHS, with a potential exemption for separate component guidance. | CBP’s fee calculation could be arbitrary and capricious; remand for appropriate relief on fees. |
| Whether the district court had an adequate factual basis for the substantial competitive-harm finding. | Agency affidavits are insufficient to show market competition and injury. | Affidavits and trade organization declarations provide basis for confidential designation. | Record provides adequate factual basis; exemptions apply. |
| Standard of review for FOIA exemptions and the deference to agency decisions. | Disclosures should be favored; government bears burden to justify exemptions. | Two-step de novo and clear-error review; agency bears burden to justify exemptions. | Standard followed; de novo review for exemption applicability with fact-findings reviewed for clear error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lahr v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2009) (strong presumption of disclosure; exemptions narrowly construed; burden on agency)
- GC Micro Corp. v. Def. Logistics Agency, 33 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 1994) (test for Exemption 4: commercial/financial info, obtained from a person, confidential or privileged; requires substantial harm)
- Lion Raisins v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 354 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) (adequate factual basis can rely on knowledgeable agency affidavits; de novo review of facts; focus on exemption applicability)
- Pub. Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 704 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (definition of substantial competitive harm; narrowly construed)
- U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (U.S. 1989) (public-interest FOIA standard and burden-shifting on exemptions)