Case Detail
Case Title | LUKAS v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2019cv00465 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2019-02-25 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2020-03-05 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Royce C. Lamberth | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | RUSSELL D. LUKAS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Russell Lukas, an attorney representing ABS, submitted a FOIA request to the Federal Communications Commission for records concerning an appeal of a decision by Windstream to terminate its dealership agreement with ABS because of conflicts of interest. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request. The agency disclosed 45 pages of the Windstream appeal and withheld seven pages under Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques) and redacted portions of the disclosed pages under Exemption 7(E) and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). Lukas later amended his FOIA request to request only Exhibit E of the Windstream appeal decision. After hearing nothing further from the agency, Lukas filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appeal | D.C. Circuit 20-5082 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [23] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Royce Lamberth has ruled that the FCC properly withheld an attachment prepared by Windstream Communications because it contained proprietary information for purposes of Exemption 4 (confidential business information). Russell Lukas requested records that had been submitted to the Universal Service Administrative Company by Windstream Communications. USAC had denied universal service functions to three healthcare providers in rural Texas that had selected Windstream as their telecommunications service provider and Lukas asked for Windstream's written appeal of that denial. The FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau provided located a 52-page responsive document and disclosed 45 pages. After Lukas filed an administrative appeal, the agency provided more documents. Ultimately, the only unresolved issue was redactions made by Windstream in Exhibit E of Windstream's appeal. Lukas filed suit to force the agency to disclose those redactions. Lukas argued that the FCC had claimed Exemption 4 even before Windstream had asserted its commercial sensitivity. Lamberth found there was nothing wrong with the agency's process here. He pointed out that "although Windstream's assertion of commercial sensitivity is helpful to the FCC's decision to redact Exhibit E, it was not necessary in order for the Court to uphold the redactions, as FOIA allows the agency to make its own determinations regarding what information should be withheld or redacted under any of FOIA's nine exemptions. Furthermore, just because the agency initially based the redactions in Exhibit E on other exemptions does not make its ultimate decision regarding Exemption 4 improper, nor does it demonstrate bad faith. Agencies are (and should be) permitted to change their minds as they process FOIA requests â€" if the FCC had not been permitted to alter its decisions throughout this process, Mr. Lukas would not have received the documents that were initially withheld pursuant to the agency's original decision in September of 2017."
Issues: Exemption 4 - Confidential business information | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|