AAR Airlift Group v. U.S. Transp. Command, No. 15-373, 2015 WL 8215522 (D.D.C. Dec. 8, 2015) (Moss, J.)

AAR Airlift Group v. U.S. Transp. Command, No. 15-373, 2015 WL 8215522 (D.D.C. Dec. 8, 2015) (Moss, J.)

Re: Reverse FOIA action in which plaintiff sought injunction against agency’s contemplated release of line-item pricing information included in contract with defendant

Disposition: Granting plaintiff's motion or summary judgment; denying defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment; remanding to defendant for further consideration

• Reverse FOIA:  "[T]he Court agrees with [plaintiff] that the rationale given by USTC . . . is insufficient to sustain the agency’s decision to disclose the line-item pricing information."  Based on "the administrative record of the parties' correspondence," the court finds that, "[i]n short, the record indicates that the parties have been talking past one another."  "The Court cannot . . . affirm USTC’s disclosure determination based on a rationale that was not in fact considered or relied upon by the agency."  Therefore, " [t]he Court concludes that remand to the agency is appropriate."  "If the problem were simply that the agency 'fail[ed] to explain [its] administrative action [so] as to frustrate effective judicial review,' the Court could resolve the matter by 'obtain[ing] from the agency, either through affidavits or testimony, such additional explanation of the reasons for the agency decision as may prove necessary.'"  "In this case, however, the problem is that USTC’s current explanation of its rationale is in tension with the contemporaneous record of its decision."  "Any 'new materials' requested by the Court at this stage would more likely constitute 'new rationalizations' for the agency’s decision that the Court may not consider on the present record, as opposed to being 'merely explanatory of the original record.'"