Case Detail
Case Title | THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT et al v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2019cv02461 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2019-08-14 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2020-08-13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Amy Berman Jackson | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | JAMES MADISON PROJECT | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | KADHIM SHUBBER | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | The James Madison Project and Financial Times reporter Kadhim Shubber submitted a FOIA request to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency at the Department of the Treasury for records. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request. The agency withheld records under Exemption 5 (privilege) and Exemption 8 (bank examination reports). JMP and Shubber filed an administrative appeal of the denial. The agency acknowledged receipt of the appeal, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, JMP and Shubber filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Opinion/Order [17] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Amy Berman Jackson has ruled that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency properly withheld records under Exemption 5 (privileges) and Exemption 8 (bank examination reports) in response to a request from the James Madison Project and Kadhim Shubber, a reporter for the Financial Times, for records concerning the consent order including a civil penalty against Wells Fargo for opening up customer accounts without permission. OCC located 669 responsive pages but decided to withhold them entirely under Exemption 5 and Exemption 8. JMP and Shubber challenged only 34 pages, withheld under both exemptions. Berman Jackson initially indicated that "although FOIA exemptions must generally be 'narrowly construed,' it is well-established that the scope of Exemption 8 is 'particularly broad.'" Recognizing the breadth of Exemption 8, JMP and Shubber contended that the public domain exception applied since the American Banker, a trade publication, had described the agency's decisions. OCC told Berman Jackson that it had reviewed the American Banker article, highlighted the OCC public disclosures within the article, and concluded that the 34 pages were much more specific than anything revealed in the American Banker article. Relying on the agency's review, Berman Jackson noted that "the public disclosures identified by the plaintiffs are general statements regarding the outcome of the Horizontal Review that do not disclose bank-specific examination results or reveal the agency's deliberations and recommendations. Because the public disclosures are not as specific as the information the agency avers is contained in the pages at issue, the exception does not apply." Berman Jackson then rejected JMP and Shubber's segregability argument. Berman Jackson noted that "the agency declarant has averred that OCC conducted a detailed review of the responsive documents, and that none of the withheld pages could be reasonably segregated and disclosed and plaintiff has not presented any evidence to the contrary. Thus, the declarations submitted by defendant are sufficient to fulfill the agency's obligation to show with reasonable specificity that a document cannot be further segregated."
Issues: Exemption 8 - Bank examination records, Exemption 5 - Privileges | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|