Case Detail
| Case Title | FRANK LLP v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2019cv01197 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2019-04-24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | Open | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Amit P. Mehta | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | FRANK LLP | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | The law firm of Frank LLP submitted a FOIA request to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for records concerning the agency's findings as reflected in its complaint filed against the National Collegiate Student Loan Trust. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request. The agency denied the request under Exemption 4 (confidential business information), Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceeding), and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques). Frank LLP filed an administrative appeal of the denial. The agency upheld its original denial on the basis of Exemption 7(A) and 7(E). Frank LLP then filed suit. Complaint issues: Litigation - Vaughn index, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Complaint attachment 6 Complaint attachment 7 Complaint attachment 8 Opinion/Order [18] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Amit Mehta has ruled that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau properly withheld records responsive to requests from the law firm of Frank, LLP concerning investigational transcripts compiled by CFPB in advance of its civil enforcement action against the National Collegiate Master Loan Trust, and its administrative enforcement action against the National Transworld Systems, a national debt-collection coordinator, under Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceeding) and that no portion of the withheld 537 responsive pages is segregable. Frank represented a class of consumers in two consolidated civil actions against NCSLT, Transworld, and a debt-collection law firm, Foster & Garbus for using false affidavits signed by Transworld employees to file unlawful student loan debt-collection lawsuits. The claims in the two lawsuits mirrored allegations in the two actions filed by CFPB. Frank submitted a FOIA request for the records of the two enforcement actions but agreed to narrow its request to the investigation-hearing transcripts, akin to depositions, of nine affiants. The agency initially asserted that the records were categorically exempt under Exemption 7(A) and that both Exemption 4 (confidential business information) and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods or techniques) applied as well. After Frank filed an administrative appeal, the agency dropped its Exemption 4 claim but continued to assert that the records were protected by both 7(A) and 7(E). Frank argued that much of the information related to the lawsuits was publicly available and that disclosure would not interfere with the government's cases. Mehta disagreed. He noted that "plaintiff's contentions are unconvincing. Nothing about the nature of the investigation transcripts or the circumstances of disclosure warrants deviating from established precedent recognizing such statements as protected under Exemption 7(A). The withheld investigational transcripts are witness statements in the traditional sense. . .Implicit in CFPB's arguments is the concern that release of the transcripts would reveal the 'focus and scope' of the proceedings and result in premature disclosures. Those are legitimate protectable interests under Exemption 7(A)." Mehta also agreed that the investigation transcripts were protected by Exemption 7(E). He pointed out that "it is logical to infer that releasing CFPB's investigational process, which could be revealed through the transcripts, would increase the risk that a violator would alter his or her behavior to avoid prosecution." Mehta found that the records were not segregable. He pointed out that "the investigational transcripts all fit into the category of protected witness statements. Accordingly, although the Bureau did not address in its declaration whether any of the withheld information could be segregated, the court independently concludes that there are no reasonably segregable portions of responsive records."
Issues: Exemption 7(A) - Categorical exemption, Exemption 7(E) - Investigative methods or techniques | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
