502 F.Supp.3d 1
D.D.C.2020Background
- Congress created the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and expanded SBA’s EIDL authority under the CARES Act to rapidly distribute relief loans during COVID-19; SBA approved roughly $717 billion in PPP and EIDL loans.
- Multiple news organizations and the Center for Public Integrity submitted FOIA requests for loan‑level data (borrower names, addresses, precise loan amounts, dates, lenders, etc.); SBA initially refused or delayed production and plaintiffs sued.
- In July 2020 SBA produced loan‑level data but adopted an either/or release: for PPP loans ≥ $150,000 it released borrower names/addresses but withheld precise amounts (providing ranges); for PPP loans < $150,000 it released precise amounts but withheld names/addresses; SBA also withheld names/addresses of sole proprietors and independent contractors for EIDL loans.
- SBA justified nondisclosure under FOIA Exemption 4 (confidential commercial/financial information) and Exemption 6 (personal privacy). Plaintiffs challenged both exemptions and moved for summary judgment; the Court consolidated related motions.
- The Court analyzed whether loan amounts and borrower identities would reveal confidential payroll or other private information and whether privacy interests were outweighed by public interest in disclosure.
- Holding: the Court denied SBA’s Exemption 4 and Exemption 6 defenses and ordered SBA to disclose names, addresses, and precise loan amounts for all PPP and EIDL borrowers by November 19, 2020.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Exemption 4 to withheld loan data | Plaintiffs: loan amounts and borrower identities are not "customarily and actually" treated as private and do not reveal confidential commercial data | SBA: PPP loan amount reveals average payroll (confidential); disclosure would permit deduction of payroll so data is "confidential" under Exemption 4 | Held: Exemption 4 not met — SBA failed to show loan amounts reliably reveal payroll (assumptions that borrowers took max loans and had no >$100k employees unsupported); application disclaimer also undermined confidentiality claim |
| Applicability of Exemption 6 to names/addresses of small‑loan borrowers, sole proprietors, and independent contractors | Plaintiffs: privacy interests are minimal given SBA’s explicit notice on application that names and loan amounts would be released; strong public interest outweighs privacy | SBA: individual privacy and closely‑held business privacy are implicated; disclosure would expose personal finances and risk targeting | Held: Exemption 6 does not protect the withheld identities — any privacy interest is weak (diminished by SBA’s notice) and is outweighed by strong public interest in overseeing massive disbursement of public funds |
| Weight of public interest versus privacy/confidentiality | Plaintiffs: disclosure is necessary to evaluate program effectiveness, equity, and fraud risk in a multi‑hundred‑billion dollar program | SBA: some public interest satisfied by released data; additional disclosure provides limited incremental value; agency has other oversight mechanisms | Held: public interest is significant (monitoring allocation, detecting fraud/misuse, assessing equity) and overcomes privacy interests; FOIA presumption favors disclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019) (clarified that Exemption 4 requires information be customarily and actually treated as private and discussed role of government assurances)
- Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. DOJ, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (FOIA places burden on agency and frames public‑interest inquiry)
- Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (1976) (FOIA’s purpose is to open agency action to public scrutiny)
- Pub. Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 704 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (elements for Exemption 4: commercial/financial, obtained from a person, privileged or confidential)
- Multi Ag Media LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, 515 F.3d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Exemption 6 protects personal finances of closely held businesses but public interest in disclosure of subsidy recipients can prevail)
- Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Norton, 309 F.3d 26 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (FOIA presumption in favor of disclosure)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Air Force, 375 F.3d 1182 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (agency must support claims that disclosure would reveal protected information; unsupported assumptions insufficient)