Case Detail
| Case Title | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2010cv00302 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2010-02-25 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2011-08-22 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Beryl A. Howell | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [20] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Beryl Howell has ruled that the Treasury Department properly invoked Exemption 5 (privileges) and Exemption 4 (confidential business information) in withholding a handful of documents pertaining to a several meetings Special Master Kenneth Feinberg had with Treasury, Federal Reserve, and AIG officials to discuss matters concerning executive compensation under the Troubled Assets Relief Program. Howell noted that several documents fell within the deliberative process privilege because they "would reflect the give and take of the consultative process, and include recommendations or opinions on legal or policy matters." She disagreed with Judicial Watch's claim that the agency must show that disclosure would actually inhibit candor. She pointed out that "the plaintiff overstates defendant's required showing. The defendant only needs to demonstrate that the information was pre-decisional and deliberative and that, therefore, the privilege is ultimately being invoked 'to prevent injury to the quality of agency decisions by allowing government officials freedom to debate alternative approaches in private.'" She agreed with the agency that factual material could be withheld. She pointed out that "where factual material was assembled into a summary or memorandum through an exercise of judgment in determining which facts to highlight 'for the benefit of an official called upon to take discretionary action,' deliberative process privilege may be asserted. Therefore, the factual material in the disputed documents was properly redacted or withheld using the deliberative process exemption here." She also found the attorney-client privilege applied in several instances. She observed that "the communication concerned the agency's own actions in its ongoing evaluation of AIG under the Interim Final Rule. As such, the agency here is 'dealing with its attorneys as would any private party seeking advice to protect personal interests, and needs the same assurance of confidentiality so it will not be deterred from full and frank communications with its counselors.'" Howell found information supplied by AIG qualified for protection under Exemption 4, even though it had been distributed to several individuals at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. She indicated that "given the FRBNY's role, the Court finds that the limited disclosures of information to the FRBNY are akin to the type of limited disclosures, such as to suppliers or employees, that do not preclude protection under Exemption 4." However, she decided one page of a document called "current Draft Talking Points," was not protected and should be disclosed. She was undecided on whether disclosure of AIG salary information could be used by competitors to poach company employees. She noted that "while the defendant does not point to any cases that directly address this form of alleged competitive injury, revealing AIG's compensation structures may cause harm by revealing AIG's business strategy and cost structure. On the other hand, the release of compensation structures would likely result in less substantial and directly competitive harm than, say, revealing unit pricing in a contract." However, she pointed out that the issue was moot since she had already found the same documents were properly withheld under Exemption 5.
Issues: Exemption 4 - Confidential business information, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
