American Small Business League v. Department of Defense
Filing
28
ORDER DENYING 18 , 20 CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2014).
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESS LEAGUE,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
No. C 14-02166 WHA
v.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
ORDER DENYING
CROSS MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant.
/
16
INTRODUCTION
17
In this action under the Freedom of Information Act, both sides move for summary
18
judgment in connection with Sections 552(b)(4) and (6) of Title Five of the United States Code.
19
For the reasons discussed below, both motions are DENIED.
20
21
STATEMENT
Plaintiff American Small Business League is an organization that promotes the interests
22
of small businesses. To that end, it focuses public attention on emerging issues for small
23
businesses, reviews federal and state government policies and procedures to determine the
24
potential impact on small businesses, and monitors federal contracts that are awarded to large
25
corporations rather than to small businesses (Compl. ¶ 3).
26
On August 9, 2013, and under the Freedom of Information Act, plaintiff requested the
27
following document from defendant agency Department of Defense: “[t]he most recent master
28
[C]omprehensive [S]ubcontracting [P]lan submitted by Sikorksy Aircraft Corporation for
participating in the Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Test Program for the Department of
1
Defense” (id. ¶ 5). According to plaintiff, the Small Business Act of 1953 normally requires
2
large contractors to submit “Individual Subcontracting Reports” and “Summary Subcontracting
3
Reports” to show how government contracts and subcontracts are being awarded to small
4
businesses. But in 1990, Congress passed the Test Program as part of a defense appropriations
5
bill, thereby allowing certain defense contractors to do away with the normally required
6
Individual Subcontracting Reports and Summary Subcontracting Reports. Instead, those defense
7
contractors can submit a different type of report — the Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan —
8
to identify “all subcontract amounts awarded to small businesses on all government contracts the
9
prime contractor fulfills” (Br. 3). In this instance, the requested Sikorsky Comprehensive
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Subcontracting Plan comes from 2013.
On September 3, 2013, the agency responded to plaintiff’s FOIA request as follows
(Compl. ¶ 6):
At this time we are unable to make a release determination on
your request within the twenty[-]day statutory time period as
there are unusual circumstances which impact our ability to
quickly process your request. These unusual circumstances are:
(a) the need to search for and collect records from several offices
geographically separated from this office and (b) the need to
consult with one or more agencies or DoD computers having a
substantial interest in either the determination or the subject
matter of these records. For these reasons, your request has been
placed in our complex processing queue and it will be worked in
the order the request was received.
19
After an appeal of the agency’s response, which has yet to be answered, plaintiff began this
20
action on May 12, 2014.
21
Now, plaintiff seeks summary judgment “to compel a determination by [the agency] as to
22
whether [Sikorksy’s Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan] [is] to be disclosed in whole or in
23
part” (Br. 2, 7). In opposition, the agency contends that plaintiff’s motion is moot because the
24
agency has now determined that the requested plan cannot be released. Reportedly, that plan
25
falls under FOIA’s exemption under Section 552(b)(4) of Title Five of the United States Code,
26
and the agency also moves for summary judgment to confirm that determination. Of note, the
27
agency’s motion raises no other FOIA exemption.
28
2
1
Following briefing and a hearing on the parties’ motions, the undersigned judge ordered
2
the agency to lodge Sikorsky’s Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan for in camera review (Dkt.
3
No. 23). That order further instructed the agency to “tab and highlight every part of the
4
requested document” that the agency believes is exempt under Section 552(b)(4), and to include
5
an accompanying declaration from either Sikorsky or the agency to address this non-exhaustive
6
list of questions:
7
(1) how stale is the information in the requested document; (2)
has any part of the requested document’s content been disclosed
in any other setting; (3) what steps has Sikorsky taken to
maintain the confidentiality of the requested document’s content,
including its actions with its own employees; and (4) how does
suppression of the requested document square with the Small
Business Act’s mandate to encourage government contractors to
subcontract to small disadvantaged businesses?
8
9
11
On November 20, 2014, the agency lodged Sikorsky’s Comprehensive Subcontracting
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
Plan, but did not highlight the reportedly exempt portions thereof. Instead, it provided one
13
redacted version and one unredacted version of the requested document, forcing the undersigned
14
judge to compare each page of each version in identifying where the allegedly exempt portions
15
are. Sikorsky has also submitted an accompanying declaration by Amy Johnson, “Director
16
Supply Management” at the company, but her declaration does not address the aforementioned
17
question of how suppression in this matter squares with the Small Business Act’s mandate
18
(Johnson Decl. ¶ 2).
19
This order now decides all motions, having considered full briefing, supplemental
20
responses, and oral argument from both sides.
21
ANALYSIS
22
As a preliminary matter, plaintiff’s brief concedes that its motion for summary judgment
23
is “necessarily limited to compelling a determination by [the agency]” on the exemption issue
24
(Br. 3, 7). Because the agency has now made that determination, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED
25
AS MOOT.
26
There still remains the agency’s own motion for summary judgment. Here, the question
27
presented is whether the agency has properly determined that the requested plan is exempt under
28
Section 552(b)(4). According to the agency, Sikorksy’s Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan
3
1
cannot be released because that plan contains confidential and financial information that would
2
harm Sikorsky’s competitive position if that information were released.
3
The agency “has the burden of proving that the information is protected from disclosure
4
under FOIA.” Frazee v. U.S. Forest Serv., 97 F.3d 367, 370–71 (9th Cir. 1996). Frazee further
5
instructed that Section 552(b)(4) “exempts from disclosure commercial or financial information
6
that is ‘privileged or confidential,’” stating the following (emphasis added) (internal citations
7
omitted):
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
Commercial or financial matter is “confidential” for purposes of
[Section 552(b)(4)] if disclosure of the information is likely to
have either of the following effects: (1) to impair the
Government’s ability to obtain necessary information in the
future; or (2) to cause substantial harm to the competitive
position of the person from whom the information was obtained
....
While a party need not show actual competitive harm, it must
present specific “evidence revealing (1) actual competition and
(2) a likelihood of substantial competitive injury” in order to
prove that the information falls under [Section 552(b)(4)].
14
Here, the agency argues that it is entitled to summary judgment based on Johnson’s
15
accompanying declaration. In relevant part, her declaration states (Johnson Decl. ¶¶ 6–9)
16
(emphasis added):
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The information subject to the FOIA Request . . . consists of
Sikorsky’s operational strategies and methods, including the
company’s make-or-buy process, the type of supplies and
services subcontracted by Sikorsky, the techniques of
identification and development of potential sources,
subcontractor proposal evaluation criteria, flow-down of
subcontracting requirements, the company’s socio-economic
goals used in subcontracting, the methods for developing such
goals, selected industry categories targeted for major outreach
initiatives, case-study examples, data regarding administration
of the plan, as well as the associated organizational structure
and the roles and responsibilities of specific individuals.
*
*
*
Release of the information subject to the FOIA Request would
cause substantial harm to the company’s competitive position.
Based on my experience and on my understanding of and
familiarity with the information requested — information that
Sikorsky does not release to the public — it is my professional
opinion that a competitor with similar expertise could readily use
the information to determine Sikorsky’s approach to key
manufacturing and sourcing decision[s] that are competitively
4
1
evaluated as part of [the agency’s] contract proposal review. If a
competitor had access to this information, it could use the
information to determine the relative strengths and weaknesses
of Sikorsky’s proposals, as well as to misappropriate operational
and manufacturing strategies that are the product of Sikorsky’s
innovation or substantial effort. The competitor could then use
all of this data and information to Sikorsky’s detriment when
preparing its own proposals or marketing materials for such
contracts.
2
3
4
5
6
Johnson’s declaration also adds that “[d]isclosing the data in he response to the FOIA Request
7
provides a potential competitor with information that will allow a competitor to better
8
understand how Sikorsky has done business in the past, how it structures its proposals, and how
9
it was able to win certain government contracts” (id. ¶ 11). To that end, the declaration
identifies “proprietary” information — such as names and contact information for Sikorsky
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
employees, training program information, dollar amounts of awarded subcontracts, “the
12
substantiation of the company’s small business goals,” the methodology for spending allocation,
13
and specific commodities for which Sikorsky subcontracts — that would reveal Sikorsky’s
14
purchasing strategies and business relationships to its competitors (id. ¶ 12).
15
Here is the problem. For the standard of review of a FOIA exemption, “a district court
16
must accord ‘substantial weight’ to [the agency’s] affidavits, provided the justifications for
17
nondisclosure ‘are not controverted by contrary evidence in the record or by evidence of [the
18
agency’s] bad faith.” Minier v. C.I.A., 88 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal citations
19
omitted). But on this issue, our court of appeals has further explained:
20
Although the [agency’s] reasons are entitled to deference, the
[agency’s] declarations must still ‘describe the justifications for
nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail, demonstrate that
the information withheld logically falls within the claimed
exemptions, and show that the justifications are not controverted
by contrary evidence in the record or by evidence of CIA bad
faith.’ The CIA must do more than show simply that it has acted
in good faith.
21
22
23
24
Berman v. C.I.A., 501 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2007) (emphasis added) (internal citations
25
omitted).
26
Having reviewed Sikorsky’s lodged Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan and Johnson’s
27
accompanying declaration, this order finds that the agency has not provided reasonably specific
28
detail to explain why the redacted portions of the lodged document are exempt under Section
5
1
552(b)(4). Neither the lodged document nor Johnson’s declaration adequately shows how the
2
redacted information is “likely to cause substantial competitive injury” if disclosed. Frazee, 97
3
F.3d at 370–71. At best, Johnson concludes in her declaration that the “[r]elease of the
4
information . . . would cause substantial harm to the company’s competitive position,” on the
5
basis that a competitor “could” use such information to assess the strengths and weaknesses of
6
Sikorsky’s bid proposals to the agency (Johnson Decl. ¶¶ 8–10, 12) (emphasis added). That is
7
not enough to grant summary judgment for the agency.
8
9
Nevertheless, Sikorsky’s lodged Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan and Johnson’s
accompanying declaration raise — for the first time after briefing — a new FOIA exemption that
reportedly applies to several of the redacted parts of the lodged document. That new FOIA
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
exemption is Section 552(b)(6), which applies to “personnel and medical files and similar files
12
the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
13
Allegedly, Section 552(b)(6) covers the handwritten signatures of government officers named on
14
the first page of Sikorsky’s Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan, as well as Sikorsky employees’
15
names, their work phone numbers, their work e-mail addresses, and/or their work mailing
16
addresses found therein.
17
This order disagrees. There is no “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”
18
that justifies exemption under Section 552(b)(6). See Forest Serv. Employees for Envtl. Ethics v.
19
U.S. Forest Serv., 524 F.3d 1021, 1024–25 (9th Cir. 2008). To the contrary, the work contact
20
information for several Sikorsky employees listed in the Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan is
21
already accessible online. Moreover, Johnson’s accompanying declaration does not specify why
22
the employees’ work contact information or the government officials’ handwritten signatures
23
justify redaction under Section 552(b)(6). At most, she declares that this is “[p]ersonal
24
identifying information . . . which was not disclosed to protect the individuals’ privacy”
25
(Johnson Decl. ¶ 12). As such, this amounts to a “trivial privacy interest” for which “Exemption
26
6 cannot apply.” Prudential Locations LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 739 F.3d 424,
27
430 (9th Cir. 2013).
28
The agency’s motion for summary judgment is therefore DENIED.
6
1
CONCLUSION
2
For the reasons discussed above, both motions for summary judgment are DENIED.
3
Given that the agency’s motion has been rejected, the Court hereby ORDERS the agency to
4
release Sikorsky’s Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan to plaintiff by DECEMBER 3, 2014,
5
subject only to appeal.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
Dated: November 23, 2014.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?