Dorsey & Whitney, LLP v. USPS, No. 18-2493, 2019 WL 4164610 (D. Minn. Sept. 3, 2019) (Wright, J.)

Dorsey & Whitney, LLP v. USPS, No. 18-2493, 2019 WL 4164610 (D. Minn. Sept. 3, 2019) (Wright, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning Negotiated Service Agreements ("NSAs") between USPS and private parties for lower rates or more favorable terms

Disposition:  Adopting magistrate judge's report and recommendation; granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; denying defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Standard of Review:  The court holds that "USPS's objection to the R & R's de novo review of USPS's decision to issue a Glomar response is overruled."  The court explains that "[the parties] do not agree that the requested information – the existence of NSAs – is covered by the good business exception."  "Absent such an agreement, a 'limited' de novo standard of review is not contemplated . . . [a]nd USPS provides no case law, nor has the Court's research produced any, that adopts a 'limited' de novo standard of review under these circumstances."
   
• Exemption 3, Glomar:  The court holds that "USPS has not carried its burden to establish that its Glomar response is justified pursuant to the good business exception as incorporated by FOIA Exemption 3."  "Rather, the evidence in the record establishes that the existence of NSAs is disclosed under good business practices."  The court relates that 39 U.S.C. § 410(c)(2), "a statutory 'good business' exception provides that USPS is not required to disclose 'information of a commercial nature, including trade secrets, whether or not obtained from a person outside the Postal Service, which under good business practice would not be publicly disclosed.'"  "Multiple courts have recognized that the good business exception is an applicable statute under Exemption 3 to FOIA."  The court relates that "USPS argues its Glomar response is justified because acknowledging even the existence of NSAs is protected information."  "The issue before the Court is whether the existence of NSAs is disclosed under good business practices, not whether the underlying contents of NSAs are disclosed under good business practices."  The court finds that "[t]he record supports [plaintiff's] contention that the existence of NSAs and other beneficial partnerships is publicly disclosed under good business practice."