Am. Small Bus. League v. DOD, No. 15-15120 & 15-15121, 2017 WL 65399 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2017) (per curiam)

Am. Small Bus. League v. DOD, No. 15-15120 & 15-15121, 2017 WL 65399 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2017) (per curiam)

Re: Request for most recent master Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan submitted by submitter corporation for participating in Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Test Program for Department of Defense

Disposition: Reversing district court's order requiring production of submitter's entire Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan

• Exemption 4: The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holds that "[t]he Department at least created a genuine issue of fact as to whether most of its redactions qualified for Exemption 4." The court explains that "[t]he Department submitted a declaration from [the submitter's] director of supply management (1) identifying the entities with which [the submitter] competes for government defense contracts and (2) averring that those entities could use the redacted information to gain a significant competitive advantage over [the submitter]." The court finds that "[n]othing more is required to gain protection from disclosure under Exemption 4, and the district court erred in ruling otherwise."
   
• Exemption 6: The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holds that "[t]The Department also created a genuine issue of fact as to whether the remaining redactions, which encompass [the submitter] employees' business contact information and signatures, were proper under Exemption 6." The court explains that "[a]lthough the employees' privacy interests in that information are small, they are not trivial because culprits could use the information for such purposes as harassment or forgery." The court "can identify no countervailing public interest sufficient to justify disclosure in these circumstances, especially since the Department already disclosed the names of all employees mentioned in the Plan."