2There is, therefore, no need for the Court to conduct an
review of the withheldrecords, as Plaintiff urges, because there are no material facts in dispute that would prevent theentry of partial summary judgment for DOE.
See Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense
, 628 F.3d 612, 626 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (“Although Congress provided district courts theoption to conduct
review under FOIA, the statute does not compel the exercise of thatoption.”). If, however, the Court finds it necessary to review the term sheets, DOE will producethem for
inspection upon request.For the reasons set forth in its opening brief and below, Defendant respectfully requeststhat the Court grant partial summary judgment in favor of DOE on the claims asserted withrespect to Item 6 of Plaintiff’s FOIA request and deny Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment.
ARGUMENTI. DOE PROPERLY APPLIED EXEMPTION 4 TO REDACT TERMS OBTAINEDFROM THE LOAN GUARANTEE APPLICANTS
It is well settled that agency-generated documents may fall within Exemption 4 if “theycontain summaries and reformulations of information supplied by a source outside thegovernment.”
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Exp.-Imp. Bank
, 108 F. Supp. 2d 19, 28 (D.D.C. 2000)(citing
Gulf & W. Indus. v. United States
, 615 F.2d 527, 529-30 (D.C. Cir. 1979));
see Pub.Citizen Health Research Group v. NIH
, 209 F. Supp 2d 37, 44-45 (D.D.C. 2002). Plaintiff
The decision of whether to conduct
inspection is left to the broad discretion of thetrial judge.
Center for Auto Safety v.
, 731 F.2d 16, 20 (D.C. Cir. 1984). As a generalrule, “[i]f the agency’s affidavits ‘provide specific information sufficient to place the documentswithin the exemption category, if this information is not contradicted in the record, and if there isno evidence in the record of agency bad faith, then summary judgment is appropriate without
review of the documents.’”
Larson v. Dep’t of State
, 565 F.3d 857, 869 (D.C. Cir. 2009)
Hayden v. N.S.A.
, 608 F.2d 1381, 1387 (D.C. Cir. 1979));
People for the Am. Way Fdn.v. Nat’l Park Serv.
, 503 F. Supp. 2d 284, 307 (D.D.C. 2007) (noting that
review isgenerally disfavored). Here, DOE has submitted detailed
indices and declarations thatpermit meaningful review of its Exemption 4 claims.
Case 1:10-cv-01335-RLW Document 19 Filed 04/26/11 Page 2 of 13