Jud. Watch, Inc. v. HHS, No. 19-00876, 2021 WL 930350 (D.D.C. Mar. 11, 2021) (McFadden, J.)
Date
Jud. Watch, Inc. v. HHS, No. 19-00876, 2021 WL 930350 (D.D.C. Mar. 11, 2021) (McFadden, J.)
Re: Request for records concerning sale of human fetal tissue
Disposition: Denying defendant's motion for summary judgment; granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
- Exemption 4: The court holds that Exemption 4 does not apply to the records at issue. The court relates that "[plaintiff] challenges the Government's invocation of Exemption 4 as to two types of information: (A) the names and addresses of [the submitter's] contract laboratories; and (B) unit prices and line-item amounts in contracts between [the submitter] and the Government." "For the former, [plaintiff] claims that the information is not commercial." "For the latter, it contends that the information is not confidential." "The Court agrees on both counts." First, the court "order[s] the Government to disclose the names and addresses of [the submitter's] contract laboratories pursuant to [plaintiff's] FOIA request." The court finds that "[defendant] states only in general terms that entities 'like [the submitter] 'can have' or 'often have' a 'financial interest' in such information." "And it theorizes about possible consequences that could befall a '[c]ompan[y] like [the submitter] if the information were disclosed: 'other companies can poach . . . [the] contract laboratories.'" "Or perhaps disclosure, 'for example, could reveal [the submitter's] sources for specialized services.'" "These generalized observations are not evidence." "The Government asserts no commercial interest on behalf of [the submitter] specifically." Additionally, the submitter finds that "[t]hese conclusory assertions do not suggest to the Court, even at the highest level of generality, why [the submitter] has a commercial interest in the information." "And other statements in the letter pertain only to the confidentiality prong." Second, the court finds that "[plaintiff] has met its burden to show that the unit pricing information it seeks is in the public domain through the fee schedules appended to the Judiciary Committee report and the Government's disclosures regarding [the submitter's] pricing." Responding to "the Government's argument, as applied to the circumstances here, [which] boils down to a requirement that redacted information be in identical form to information in the public domain," the court finds that "[b]inding caselaw shows that the relevant inquiry is whether the information is in the public domain, not whether it is also in precisely the same form." This case law "do[es] not require a plaintiff to produce an exact copy of the redacted information, in the same form, to meet that burden of production."
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Exemption 4
Updated March 31, 2021