Case Detail
Case Title | TROTTER v. CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2019cv02008 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2019-07-05 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2022-07-21 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Royce C. Lamberth | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | FREDERICK C. TROTTER | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Frederick Trotter submitted a FOIA request to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for records concerning email addresses for the contact person for an individual or organization of eligible providers. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request. The agency told Trotter that it had identified responsive records but would not disclose them. Trotter then filed an administrative appeal. After hearing nothing further from the agency, Trotter filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Adequacy - Search, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES (CMS) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Opinion/Order [32] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Royce Lamberth has ruled that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services properly withheld the domain portion of email addresses associated with each national provider identification number from Frederick Trotter under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). When registering, healthcare providers must provide contact information �" including an email address �" for someone who can answer questions about the providers' application. The email address need not be for the provider himself, but each email address must belong to a person, as opposed to an entity or corporation. CMS told Trotter that it had identified 6,380,915 active providers and would withhold all the email addresses because disclosure would constitute an invasion of personal privacy. Although Trotter amended his request for only the domain portion, the agency told him it would still withhold that portion as well. Assessing the privacy interests, Lamberth pointed out that "the information requested �" the email address domain names �" does indeed convey information about a particular individual. That is so because the email address domains all belong to a person. And those domains convey information about the person to which they belong because the domains identify entities with whom the contact persons have a commercial relationship or, in some cases, the providers' own websites." By analogy, Trotter argued that disclosure of the domain names was no more invasive than the disclosure of only the state portion of a street address. But Lamberth observed that "this analogy is flawed. The privacy exemption would apply to someone's state of residence just as it applies to the email address domain. Though many people share the same state of residence of the same email address domain, both types of information nevertheless convey something particular about an individual." Trotter argued the information was publicly available. Responding to Trotter's claim, Lamberth noted that "CMS does provide email addresses in the same location as identification numbers, but only for participants in electronic health information exchange, a digital records-sharing program. Providers who participate in health-information exchange no longer have an interest in maintaining the privacy of their domains because CMS has disclosed this information publicly. But providers who do not participate in health-information exchange still maintain their interest in the privacy of their domains." Lamberth then rejected Trotter's claim that disclosure was in the public interest, pointing out that "Trotter provides no specific reasons to believe that the data would be useful in detecting waste, fraud, or abuse."
Opinion/Order [43]Issues: Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Royce Lamberth has ruled that Frederick Trotter is not entitled to attorney's fees for his litigation against the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to obtain two types of information â€" the domain portions of email addresses associated with CMS-registered healthcare providers and the providers' corresponding national provider identification numbers (NPI numbers). Lamberth rejected the bulk of Trotter's claims but ruled that CMS could not withhold the domains of providers who participate in electronic health-information exchange because the information (a digital records sharing program with CMS) is already disclosed to the public. Lamberth granted Trotter summary judgment on that narrow issue. Trotter then moved for an award of attorney's fees, arguing that he had substantially prevailed. In response to Trotter's original FOIA request for email addresses associated with each NPI number, CMS identified 6,380,915 active providers. The agency told Trotter it would withhold the full email address under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). Trotter then amended his request to ask only for domains associated with each provider. CMS again told Trotter that it planned to withhold those records as well under the privacy exemption. Trotter then filed suit for the domain addresses associated with each healthcare provider registered with CMS and the NPI numbers associated with those addresses. Lamberth ruled against Trotter on the substance of his request but found that because CMS made public email domains of those providers who participate in the health-information exchange, it could not withhold them. That group constituted 203,939 lines of provider information. Trotter then filed a motion for attorney's fees, requesting $189,685.85 in fees. While CMS agreed that Trotter was eligible for attorney's fees, the agency argued he was not entitled to fees. Lamberth agreed, finding that Trotter had failed to show any public interest derived from the disclosure of the extra lines. He noted that "Trotter's fee request relies on many of the same arguments and conclusory statements that the Court previously determined were inadequate. For example, Trotter rehashes his claim that the obtained data provide insights into how CMS performs its statutory and regulatory duties and whether CMS is reducing 'waste, fraud, and abuse.'" He observed that "Trotter does not explain how a domain link between an individual provider and their associated organization illuminates whether the organization is 'willing to spend money to enable the provider to exchange healthcare data using CMS-approved protocols.'" Addressing the second and third factors in the attorney's fees analysis â€" whether the requester had a personal or commercial interest in the records â€" Lamberth indicated that "the second and third factors weigh in favor of Trotter. But while these factors weigh in favor of Trotter because of his uncontested status as a 'data journalist,' they do 'little to advance [his] position when weighing all four factors.'" Turning to the fourth factor â€" whether the agency had a reasonable basis in law to withhold the records â€" Lamberth indicated that "CMS's decision to withhold most of the requested domains was not only reasonable, it was also correct. And Trotter is not entitled to fees where the government's actions were legally justified." Lamberth concluded that "at bottom, the Court cannot say that CMS's position was unreasonable, or that CMS's behavior was 'recalcitrant' of 'obdurate' when it was correct on the vast majority of its claims and the legal framework that was the focus of this litigation."
Issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees - Entitlement - Reasonable Basis for Withholding | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|