Mar. Documentation Ctr. Corp. v. U.S. Coast Guard, No. 22-55696, 2024 WL 1007503 (9th Cir. Mar. 8, 2024) (per curiam)

Mar. Documentation Ctr. Corp. v. U.S. Coast Guard, No. 22-55696, 2024 WL 1007503 (9th Cir. Mar. 8, 2024) (per curiam)

Re:  Request for personally identifiable information of owners of vessels documented with the Coast Guard

Disposition:  Affirming district court’s grant of government’s motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 6:  The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holds that “[t]he district court correctly found that Exemption 6 permitted the Coast Guard to withhold the names and addresses of individual vessel owners.”  “Exemption 6 permits agencies to withhold ‘personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’”  “The term ‘similar files’ is interpreted broadly and includes ‘[g]overnment records containing information that applies to particular individuals.’”  The court finds that “[t]he information [plaintiff] seeks easily satisfies this threshold test.”  The court also finds that “[d]isclosing individual vessel owners’ names and addresses implicates ‘nontrivial’ personal privacy interests.”  “Such disclosure would identify those owners and their addresses with particular vessels, exposing them to commercial solicitations related to their vessels.”  “Vessel owners’ privacy interests are not diminished by the Coast Guard’s policy prior to June 2017 of releasing personally identifiable information, or by its inadvertent release of such information in May 2021.”  “As Maritime’s counsel conceded at oral argument, the list it seeks undoubtedly contains updated names and addresses reflecting new registrations and transfers.”  “Moreover, ‘FOIA does not impose a duty on the government to provide a satisfactory explanation’ when it begins redacting personally identifiable information as part of a ‘change in its policy.’”  “The Coast Guard’s disclosure to select entities . . . also does not suggest that individual owners have no ‘nontrivial’ privacy interest in the dissemination of their personally identifiable information to the general public.”  “Against this privacy interest, [plaintiff] has shown no significant public interest that would likely be advanced by disclosing individual vessel owners’ personally identifiable information.”  “Disclosing individual vessel owners’ names and addresses would not directly reveal anything about the Coast Guard’s ‘performance of its statutory duties’ and [the requester’s] argument that ongoing FOIA requests followed by updated disclosures of personally identifiable information would reveal whether the Coast Guard is ‘timely’ performing its duties or maintaining ‘accurate’ vessel registration information is attenuated at best.”
   
• ​​​​​​​Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration:  The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holds that “[n]or was the district court’s reliance on [defendant’s declarant’s declaration] improper.”  “[Defendant’s declarant] adequately established his personal knowledge for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(4) by virtue of his position as the director of the office responsible for processing [the requester’s] FOIA request and his review of pertinent records pursuant to his investigation.”