Skip to main content

Aqualliance v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. 16-0717, 2017 WL 1082216 (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2017) (Chutkan, J.)


Aqualliance v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. 16-0717, 2017 WL 1082216 (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2017) (Chutkan, J.)


Re: Request for records concerning application for California Water Fix project


Disposition: Granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment; granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment

  • Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search: The court relates that "[p]laintiff conceded that the search was reasonable[.]" "Because Plaintiff has conceded this claim and issue, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted as to [this] Count[.]"
  • Exemption 6: "[T]he court concludes that the Army Corps did not properly apply Exemption 6 to the names and addresses on [a] requested [public notice distribution list … of individuals who own property along the route of the project]." The court finds that "the Army Corps has not met its burden of establishing that there is a significant privacy interest in protecting from disclosure the individuals' names and addresses on the distribution list" because "[i]t appears that the only information revealed about the individuals on the list is that their properties are adjacent to the proposed project, which is information any individual could discern from simply looking at property records or a map of the area." The court also finds that "[t]he withheld information reflects on the actions taken by the government in conducting its official business and reveals at least some information about what the government is up to . . . and given the lack of a significant privacy interest, the court further finds that this public interest weighs in favor of disclosure."
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Exemption 6
Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search
Updated December 13, 2021