Case Detail
| Case Title | CLEAN AIR COUNCIL v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR et al | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | Eastern District of Pennsylvania | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Philadelphia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 2:2022cv02741 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2022-07-14 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2024-12-18 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | DISTRICT JUDGE KELLEY BRISBON HODGE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | CLEAN AIR COUNCIL | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | The Clean Air Council submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Interior for records concerning the engineering report prepared by Philadelphia Gas Works related to a project PGW was working on with the National Park Service. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and indicated that it was processing the request. CAC filed an administrative appeal. After hearing nothing further from the agency, CAC filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | NATIONAL PARK SERVICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | PHILADELPHIA GAS WORKS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | CONSTELLATION NEWENERGY, INC. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Opinion/Order [38] Opinion/Order [39] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Pennsylvania has ruled that the National Park Service failed to show that Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) had been assured confidentiality for its proposal to replace the heating and air conditioning system at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, finding that the proposal is not confidential for purposes of Exemption 4 (commercial and confidential) as required by the 2019 Supreme Court ruling in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 588 U.S. 427 (2019). In response to litigation brought by the environmental advocacy group, Clean Air Council, using both FOIA and the Pennsylvania Right to Know Law, PGW earlier convinced the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records that its proposal was protected by the proprietary business information exemption in the Right to Know Law. Although the Clean Air Council had lost at the state level in its request to PGW, it then won on the federal level in its suit against NPS. When the Clean Air Council learned that NPS had decided to replace the current steam-loop heating system in Independence Hall with natural gas-fired boilers, it made a FOIA request to the Department of Interior, which referred the request to NPS for processing. After hearing nothing further from NPS, the Clean Air Council decided to send a request to PGW under the Pennsylvania Right to Know Law. PGW granted the request in part but refused to disclose the preliminary assessment and feasibility studies, arguing that they were confidential under the Right to Know Law. The Council appealed that decision to the Office of Open Records. OOR upheld PGW's position, finding that the records were confidential and commercial and thus exempt under the Right to Know Law. The Council did not appeal the decision of the OOR. Instead, the Council filed suit under FOIA in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. NPS then provided approximately 2,325 pages of partially redacted records. It also provided a Vaughn Index of records withheld under Exemption 4. PGW argued that collateral estoppel applied because the same issue had already been litigated by the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records in PGW's favor. Both PGW and NPS argued that the records were also properly withheld under Exemption 4. The Council responded that NPS had overapplied Exemption 4 because there was no evidence NPS had provided assurances of privacy and because there was no evidence that the records were customarily kept private. Judge Kelley Hodge first explained the substance of Argus Leader Media. She noted that "the U.S. Supreme Court held that the term 'confidential' must be given the 'ordinary, contemporary, common meaning,' it had when the FOIA was passed in 1966. Since FOIA fails to provide any definition of 'confidential' in its text, the Supreme Court determined that the term 'confidential' meant then, as it does now, 'private' or 'secret.'" She added that "under Argus Leader, 'information communicated to another remains confidential whenever it is customarily kept private, or at least closely held, by that person imparting it.' The Court also stated that a second condition â€" assurances of confidentiality from the recipient â€" could also apply." Hodges then considered whether collateral estoppel applied under the circumstances. She indicated that "the first prong â€" identify of issues â€" requires the intervenors to show that the issue before the PA Office of Open Records is identical to the issue raised here." She pointed out that "FOIA Exemption 4 restricts mandatory disclosure of 'commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged and confidential. Unlike the PA Right to Know Law, FOIA does not explicitly define 'confidential.' Thus, the operative language in the PA Right to Know Law and the FOIA is not 'essentially the same.'" Hodges added that "under Argus Leader, FOIA may even require a third step â€" whether PGW and Constellation [its subcontractor] received assurances of confidentiality from the federal government. These are substantial differences requiring the relevant adjudicatory body to focus on different evidence, the actions of different parties, and answer different legal questions." Although NPS participated in the OOR proceeding, it was limited to whether Exemption 7(F) (harm to person) might apply to the disclosure of critical infrastructure information. Hodges observed that "there is absolutely no discussion of FOIA Exemption 4 in NPS's position statement, or in the Office of Open Records Final Determination memorandum." Hodges then turned to the question of whether NPS had shown that it provided assurances of confidentiality to the feasibility studies. She noted that "the Council argues that the Government's decision to withhold the feasibility studies and supporting documents in whole pursuant to Exemption 4, fails to meet either prong of the Argus Leader Media test. According to the Council, there is weak evidence that NPS provided assurances to Constellation or PGW that the feasibility studies would remain confidential, and undisputed facts actually show the opposite, including a provision in the contract between NPS and Constellation that provides that the feasibility studies may be subject to a public-facing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and environmental assessment and a review under the National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA). The Council also argues that there is little evidence that these feasibility studies in whole are customarily held private or secret â€" even if certain methodologies or formulas discussed within the studies are redacted, asserting that 'there is no basis to extend this cloak of secrecy to all the information, such as numerical data or engineering results.'" While NPS insisted that assurances of confidentiality had been given, Hodges pointed out that the Council also questioned whether confidentiality were PGW and Constellation's customary practices. She explained that the Council contended that "it is not sufficient for Exemption 4 purposes for the submitter to simply attest 'that they do not customarily release the information to the public.' The Court agrees that it is not enough for PGW and Constellation to simply 'invoke the magic words â€" customarily and actually kept confidential.' Rather, they must 'adequately describe the steps it takes to keep the information confidential. Those steps must seem reasonable to the producing agency (or, if litigation results, the reviewing court), and the company must attest that they have succeeded in maintaining the information's confidentiality.' Although the affidavits submitted by PGW, Constellation, and NPS thoroughly describe the circumstances in which the feasibility studies and supporting documents were submitted to NPS and detail why release of at least some of the information contained in the studies would harm PGW and Constellation, they do not sufficiently describe steps PGW and Constellation customarily take to keep information of this sort confidential." Hodges reviewed the substance of claims made by PGW, Constellation, and NPS regarding the customary treatment of such information as confidential and found them lacking. She noted that "when one compares these declarations with those found to be sufficient in other post-Argus Leader cases, PGW and Constellation's declarations lack the depth and detail regarding their processes thereby making the deficiencies clear." She observed that "here, the Court is uncertain as to how Constellation and PGW customarily protect the sort of information communicated through feasibility studies, internally and externally. The Court will not engage in speculation in the absence of clarity." She pointed out that she was troubled by the lack of any confidentiality agreement before the feasibility studies were submitted. She noted that "an agreement between the submitter and the recipient â€" particularly a recipient with well-known public disclosure obligations like the federal government â€" to maintain confidences is a touchstone of the confidential exchange of information, and such agreements (or lack thereof) feature in courts' Exemption 4 analysis post-Argus Leader." She added that the public disclosure obligations inherent with NEPA and NHPA should have put the companies on notice that certain information would likely be publicly disclosed. Hodges then turned to whether information communicated to the government without assurances of confidentiality lost its claim to remain private. She indicated that "here, the Court determines that the answer is yes, at least as to some of the information contained in the feasibility studies and supporting documents. Thus, a level of deliberate scrutiny is warranted to determine what information may be provided and ensure the purpose of FOIA is maintained â€" transparency coupled with necessary protections noted as exceptions." She sent the case back to NPS to further determine what portions of the feasibility studies could be disclosed without harming the purposes of Exemption 4.
Issues: Exemption 4 - Confidential business information | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
