FIA-23-0016 - In the Matter of Citizens United for Resources and the Environment

On July 25, 2023, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) granted in part a FOIA appeal filed by Citizens United for Resources and the Environment (Appellant) from a determination letter issued by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Golden Field Office (GFO). Appellant's FOIA request sought 18 categories of records related to two contracts ("LADWP Contract" and "Riverside Contract") which involved a Management & Operating (M&O) contractor (contractor) for the DOE. GFO provided Appellant with responsive documents, but withheld portions of some of the documents pursuant to Exemption 4 and Exemption 6.  On Appeal, the Appellant argued that GFO's redactions under Exemption 4 and Exemption 6 were improper. The Appellant also alleged that GFO's responses to some of Appellant's specific requests were inadequate based on Appellant's disagreements regarding the contents of the responsive documents or the rationale provided in GFO's responses.

Regarding Exemption 4, OHA found that GFO properly applied Exemption 4 to redacted information in the contractor's Organizational Conflicts of Interest Plan and Program and in its cost development sheets and cost development information. However, GFO had failed to show that the contractor's passcodes are commercial or financial information. Accordingly, OHA remanded this portion of the Appeal for further processing by GFO to determine whether the passcodes are commercial or financial information and depending on its findings, to determine whether a different exception applies or to conduct further processing of the Appellant's FOIA request for this type of requested documents.

Regarding Exemption 6, the Appellant asserted that it was not appropriate to redact the names of Individuals involved in the LADWP contract because this information was not intended to harass or embarrass anyone. Case precedent has established there is minimal public interest in learning the names of lower-level employees. However, GFO stated that it redacted all non -government names and contact information under Exemption 6, and gave no indication that it attempted to distinguish between different types of contract employees. Accordingly, OHA remanded this issue for GFO to consider whether each name redacted was appropriate under Exemption 6.

The Appellant also asserted that some of GFO's responses were inadequate because they did not contain any emails, however, OHA found that the responsive documents contained several emails . Moreover, OHA found that Appellant's requests that GFO produce lists of statutes and regulations were properly denied because those were requests for the DOE to conduct legal research . Additionally, OHA found that GFO properly applied the contract provisions of the M&O contract to withhold certain contract documents, because those documents are contractor -owned records not subject to FOIA. Therefore, OHA denied all other parts of the appeal. (OHA Case No. FIA-23-0016)