Ctr. For Auto. Safety v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, No. 11-1048, 2015 WL 5726348 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2015) (Howell, J.)

Ctr. For Auto. Safety v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, No. 11-1048, 2015 WL 5726348 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2015) (Howell, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning  2009 Chrysler and General Motors bankruptcies

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

• Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration:  The court holds that "to the extent they continue to withhold any documents, the defendants are instructed to submit a revised, combined Vaughn index for both GM and Chrysler, with numbered entries for all remaining disputed documents."  "To enable a ruling on each specific contested document, the Vaughn index shall detail, for each disputed document, (1) whether any redaction has been made under Exemption 6 and, if so, providing the nature of the information redacted, and (2) the specific category or categories that apply."  The court explains that "the deficiencies in the Vaughn indices submitted in this case . . . permeate even the purportedly undisputed records and preclude summary judgment determinations except in narrow circumstances."  The court explains that "[it] could stop here and require the defendants simply to redo their submissions, but additional guidance about the legal disputes raised by the parties may assist the parties in reducing the number of disputed documents at issue."

• Exemption 4:  The court relates that "the parties dispute only whether the documents are 'confidential.'"  The court first finds that "the withheld documents are considered involuntarily submitted."  The court explains that "defendants point to no particular documents and litigate only based on the involuntary standard" and "do not dispute that any information turned over by GM and Chrysler to Treasury was submitted by the companies in their efforts to secure funding under TARP."  The court then finds that "for many of the disputed documents, without more information about the authors, the Court cannot determine whether the documents contain information 'obtained from a person' rather than information generated within Treasury."  Moreover, "the Court is unable to determine what text was redacted from which emails in the chain and, thus, has no way to determine whether the redacted information contained in the emails may have been 'obtained from a person.'"  However, the court does find that "[b]y contrast, the Chrysler Vaughn Index mostly contains sufficient detail for the Court to make a determination with respect to the 'obtained from a person' requirement of Exemption 4."  "The defendants, however, have failed to identify exactly which redacted emails are part of such email chains."  "Also, in any event, some Chrysler documents have been withheld in their entirety without sufficient explanation."  The court then finds that "defendants have failed to show sufficiently either of the two prongs necessary to demonstrate the withheld documents are 'confidential' within the meaning of Exemption 4."  First, "the Court finds the defendants have not shown how the release of any of the withheld documents will 'impair the Government’s ability to obtain necessary information in the future.'"  The court explains that "[i]f a company wants the benefits offered, it will comply with demands for information, no matter how sensitive."  Additionally, the court finds that "[t]here is abundant evidence in the record that GM and Chrysler had to take the government’s bailout or go bankrupt."  Second, the court finds that, "with respect to competitive harm, the defendants have not provided a sufficient showing to sustain summary judgment in their favor."  The court finds that "to the extent that the defendants oppose the release of documents based on the potential effect of release on 'marketplace goodwill,' . . . the defendants rely on too broad a definition of competitive harm."  Additionally, "defendants’ bald assertions that entities other than direct competitors could use the disputed information, if disclosed, to their own competitive advantages, without any explanation of how such entities could use the information, is insufficient and unconvincing."  The court also finds that "[a] company’s request for confidential treatment is not a sufficient basis for withholding information."  Additionally, the court finds that "defendants have not sufficiently explained how the release of documents pertaining to Old GM or Old Chrysler or otherwise containing dated, six-year-old financial information could be used by their competitors to cause them harm."  Lastly, the court finds that "to the extent that the same negotiation and business strategies which the defendants seek to protect have been revealed already to the public, release of the information would not cause GM or Chrysler substantial competitive harm."
   
• Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection:  The court holds that "plaintiff’s request for in camera review is denied without prejudice."  The court bases its holding on "the large number of documents at issue" and the concept that "[i]n camera review, however, 'place[s] a substantial burden on judicial resources' and, 'when the agency has not satisfied its Vaughn indexing duties, in camera review also deprives the FOIA requester of an opportunity to present his interpretation of the withheld documents.'"