Stevens v. DHS, No. 14-3305, 2017 WL 1397549 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 19, 2017) (Leinenweber, J.)

Stevens v. DHS, No. 14-3305, 2017 WL 1397549 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 19, 2017) (Leinenweber, J.)

Re: Reverse FOIA case brought under the Administrative Procedures Act regarding request for records concerning Detainee Volunteer Wages

Disposition: Granting defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment; denying intervenor's motion for summary judgment

• Reverse FOIA & Exemption 4: "[T]he Court finds that the ICE's decision to disclose the [intervenor's] bid and contract for the . . . facility is not arbitrary and capricious." The court holds that "[the intervenor] wholly failed with any specificity to allege how its competitive position would be harmed by disclosure of various provisions of the bid and contract from which ICE had already agreed to redact pricing and intellectual property information." The court explains that "[h]ow [the intervenor] promises to perform the specific services could well be confidential if [the intervenor] proposes to use certain intellectual property in order to carry out its obligations." "However the Court understands that ICE has already agreed to redact such information." "There is no evidence of any possible competitive injury to [the intervenor] that the Court can find in the record that could result from the disclosure." Responding to the invervenor's arguments, the court also finds that "[the intervenor] appears to be asking ICE to show how disclosure would not cause competitive harm to [it]." "This is not a basis for overruling the agency decision."
  
  "In regard to [the intervenor's] argument that its contract is not among the documents requested by the Plaintiff, [the court holds that] suffice to say that is not a defense to disclosure." "It is either privileged or it is not." "It is up to ICE and the requester to decide whether the information sought is relevant to what was requested."