Mar. Documentation Ctr. Corp. v. U.S. Coast Guard, No. 21-0489, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107267 (C.D. Cal. June 14, 2022) (Holcomb, J.)

Mar. Documentation Ctr. Corp. v. U.S. Coast Guard, No. 21-0489, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107267 (C.D. Cal. June 14, 2022) (Holcomb, J.)

Re:  Request for records relating to vessel ownership

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  "An agency's search for records is considered 'adequate' if it was conducted 'using methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested.'"  "Here, the adequacy of the [defendant's] search for responsive records is not in dispute."  "Indeed, in response to [plaintiff's] FOIA request for information related to the [Merchant Vessels of the United States ("MVUS")] data file, the [defendant] searched the two databases that source the MVUS data file . . . ."  "The parties accordingly agree that the [defendant's] search of those databases was reasonably calculated to produce all records responsive to [Plaintiff's] FOIA request."  "The Court, therefore, finds that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that the Coast Guard adequately searched for the records that Maritime requested."
   
• Exemptions 6 & 7(C):  "Before determining whether the information was properly withheld, the Court evaluates whether the type of records at issue fall under Exemption 6, which protects 'personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.'"  "Here, the Court determines that the names and addresses of vessel owners constitute 'similar files' under Exemption 6." 
  
  "[T]he Court agrees with [defendant] that releasing the names and addresses of nearly 300,000 vessel owners implicates a nontrivial privacy interest."  "[B]ecause of the commercial value of [the] list in connection with . . . individuals' ownership and registration of their vessels, the Court finds that releasing their PII implicates a nontrivial privacy interest."  "[Plaintiff] nevertheless argues that the individual vessel owners have no privacy interest in their PII because [defendant] previously published that information before a 2017 policy change."  "But the Ninth Circuit has rejected the argument that a prior policy of publishing certain information means that that information should now be released."  "Indeed, 'FOIA does not impose a duty on the government to provide a satisfactory explanation of a change in its policy; rather, it merely requires us to decide on the record before us whether disclosure of the requested information would give rise to a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.'"  "Accordingly, because of the commercial value of that list in connection with those individuals' ownership and registration of their vessels, the Court finds that releasing their PII implicates a nontrivial privacy interest."
  
  Additionally, "releasing the requested names and addresses of vessel owners would reveal nothing about the government's operations or activities that would be in the public interest."  "[Plaintiff] contends that releasing [the] information would help [it] and others in the boating industry 'research PII' in order [to] 'correctly and efficiently . . . effectuate registration, renewals, and transfer of vessels.'"  "In other words, releasing the PII would allow [plaintiff] to solicit potential customers for its vessel registration."  "[T]hat commercial activity is not likely to advance the public interest:  '[u]se of the list [of PII] for advertising purposes confers no public benefit weighing in favor of disclosure.'"  "The Court, therefore, concludes that [plaintiff] has failed to show that the PII at issue would significantly advance the public interest."
  
  "When balancing the privacy interests at stake in the absence of a significant public interest, courts recognize that 'something, even a modest privacy interest, outweighs nothing every time.'"  "The [Exemption 6] balancing test thus weighs against disclosure." 
  
  "Because the Court finds that [defendant] properly withheld the names and addresses of vessel owners under FOIA Exemption 6, the Court need not address Exemption 7(C)."