Shepherd v. CFPB, No. 18-2004, 2019 WL 4451981 (D.D.C. Sept. 17, 2019) (Kelly, J.)

Shepherd v. CFPB, No. 18-2004, 2019 WL 4451981 (D.D.C. Sept. 17, 2019) (Kelly, J.)

Re:  Request for certain telephone records of defendant's employee

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; denying defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 6:  The court holds that "the CFPB bears the burden of proving that the phone numbers it redacted from the six pages of records at issue may be withheld under Exemption 6."  "But all the CFPB has told the Court about them is that they are not either (1) the CFPB's own Washington, D.C. landlines or (2) numbers that the CFPB could associate with businesses using Google."  "This information is insufficient for the Court to determine whether these phone numbers are personnel, medical, or 'similar files' that apply to a particular individual; and, if so, whether, upon balancing the public interest in disclosure against the privacy interests at stake, their disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." "To undertake the above analysis, the Court needs more information about the redacted phone numbers – as opposed to what they are not."  "Simply put, the Court has little context here."  "Moreover, the CFPB's approach shows why the Court cannot – as the CFPB urges – simply assume on this record that all the redacted phone numbers are those of individuals with substantial privacy interests."  "The CFPB identified – and therefore did not redact – its own Washington, D.C. landlines that appeared in the records."  "But it apparently took no steps to identify landlines associated with other CFPB offices or CFPB-issued cell phones, two types of phone numbers that, at a minimum, do not clearly warrant withholding under Exemption 6."  "Similarly, the CFPB does not represent that it tried to identify, and therefore not redact, phone numbers associated with government offices or officials outside the CFPB."  "Whether Exemption 6 would cover such phone numbers – as in countless other situations – would depend on the particular facts, circumstances, and interests at stake."  "And finally, the CFPB's use of Google to exclude phone numbers associated with businesses from the redacted phone numbers did not adequately accomplish that task, at least on the record here."  "The Court has no information about the likelihood that a Google search of a phone number accurately reflects whether that phone number belongs to a business."  "The Court therefore has no basis to infer there are no business phone numbers among those that the CFPB redacted and withheld from [plaintiff]."