Case Detail
| Case Title | GOLD ANTI-TRUST ACTION COMMITTEE, INC. v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2009cv02436 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2009-12-30 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2011-02-18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Ellen S. Huvelle | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | GOLD ANTI-TRUST ACTION COMMITTEE, INC. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Opinion/Order [23] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle has ruled that the Federal Reserve conducted an adequate search for records relating to gold swaps and properly invoked Exemption 4 (confidential business information) and Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege) to withhold some records. The Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee made a request in 2007 for any records related to gold swaps. The agency released all or part of 98 documents and withheld 144 pages. The agency's initial decision was upheld on appeal and GATA did not pursue the request further. However, in 2009 GATA filed another similar, but not identical, request, part of which asked specifically for the records withheld in the 2007 request. The Board located two publicly available documents from the website of the Federal Open Market Committee and provided them to GATA. The agency also reviewed the exempt information from the 2007 request and confirmed that they should still be withheld. GATA filed suit and the Board conducted another review, releasing seven documents in full and 19 documents in part. GATA attacked the adequacy of the search by arguing that the Board should have identified any records systems that were not searched. Huvelle rejected the claim, noting that "to fulfill its obligations under FOIA, an agency must 'provid[e] "a reasonably detailed affidavit, setting forth the terms and the type of search performed, and averring that all files likely to contain responsive material. . .were searched."' The Board has clearly met this burden, and is not required, as plaintiff suggests, to provide an additional list of each place it did not search." GATA also complained that many of the withheld documents had nothing to do with gold swaps and the Board had not explained why that was the case. Huvelle pointed out that "these documents are responsive to GATA's current FOIA request only because they were withheld in response to the 2007 request. The documents were deemed responsive to that request because broader search criteria were used in order to identify any document 'that could conceivably be related' to gold swaps. This broader search therefore identified documents relating either to gold or swaps and resulted in the identification of many documents that evidently did not pertain to 'gold swaps.' While these facts could indicate that the 2007 FOIA search was overbroad, they do not serve to undermine the adequacy of the 2009 search." After reviewing 20 documents in camera, Huvelle found that almost all of them were protected under Exemption 5. She rejected GATA's claim that only early drafts of documents were protected. She pointed out that "such a narrow view of Exemption 5 ignores the possibility, as here, that a memorandum may not represent final agency policy, but rather 'the staff's recommendations and advice regarding possible ways to proceed and consequences associated with proceeding in a certain manner.'" She rejected the Board's contention that one document containing notes of a meeting was deliberative because it reflected the writer's perspective. Instead, she observed that "it is apparent that these notes do not reflect 'the writer's analytical views regarding the matters discussed,' but rather are a straightforward factual recounting of a meeting with representatives of foreign central banks, detailing what each of the participants said." Turning to Exemption 4, she found that information provided by foreign central banks pertaining to inquiries about swap arrangements that were never actually entered into qualified as being "obtained from a person." She noted that "they are agencies of foreign governments and are therefore 'persons' under FOIA." She added that "while plaintiff argues that 'other interests' may be at stake as well, this does not negate the obviously commercial and financial nature of the withheld information."
Issues: Exemption 4 - Confidential business information, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
