cases, the information I requested is not exempt from disclosure, because of Crane’s uniquestatus and relationship with the Department of Treasury (DOT) and the reasons set forth below.
THE INFORMATION IN THE AUDIT WAS NOT “OBTAINED FROM APERSON” UNDER EXEMPTION 4
In your denial, you explained that “businesses are considered ‘persons’ for the purpose of the [Exemption 4] definition.” While that may be true, the specific information that I amrequesting is part of a broad, comprehensive analysis that was assembled by DCAA after itretrieved the necessary information from DOT. Because DCAA did not receive the informationdirectly from Crane, but rather used the information as part of a government-generated analysisof Crane’s contract with DOT, that information was not “obtained from a person” within themeaning of Exemption 4.Courts have held that information produced by the government is not “obtained from a person” and thus does not come within the scope of Exemption 4.
See Buffalo Evening News, Inc. v. Small Bus. Admin.
, 666 F. Supp. 467, 469 (W.D.N.Y. 1987) (ordering disclosure and rejecting agency’s argument that the agency “obtain[ed] information concerning the status of …[the] loan from the small business itself … [and] merely compiles and records the data supplied by the business through its loan payment activity”).One analogous case is particularly demonstrative. In
Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Dept. of Health & Human Serv.
, the plaintiffs sought access to results within HHS’s audit of medicare billing practices of Clinical Practices of the University of Pennsylvania (CPUP). 69F.Supp.2d 63, 65 (D.D.C. 1999). Judge Robertson explained that Exemption 4 did not apply toHHS spreadsheets that were generated from contractor-furnished raw data.
. at 66-67. Thecourt dismissed HHS’s claims that the information was obtained from CPUP because it was2