February 20, 2025
SENT BY E-MAIL
XXXX
Re: 2025-APP-00005 (Appeal of Response 2025-FOIA-00003); 2025-APP-00006 (Appeal of Response 2025-FOIA-00004); 2025-APP-00007 (Appeal of Response 2025-FOIA-00005); 2025-APP-00008 (Appeal of Response 2025-FOIA-00006)
Dear XXXX:
By correspondence dated December 6, 2024, you submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (2025-FOIA-00003) for all records and information pertaining to the National Credit Union Administration’s (NCUA) investigation and subsequent determination regarding your complaint number 235472 filed on July 8, 2024, against XXXX Federal Credit Union, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX. This complaint alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
On December 6, 2024, you submitted a FOIA request (2025-FOIA-00004) for all records and information pertaining to the NCUA’s investigation and subsequent determination regarding your complaint number 236020 filed on July 19, 2024, against XXXX Federal Credit Union. This complaint alleged violations of the FCRA, retaliation, and failure to investigate cybersecurity risk.
On December 6, 2024, you submitted a FOIA request (2025-FOIA-00005) for all records and information pertaining to the NCUA’s investigation and subsequent determination regarding your complaint number 236257 filed on July 25, 2024, against XXXX Federal Credit Union. This complaint alleged violations of the FCRA, retaliation, and failure to investigate FCRA disputes.
On December 6, 2024, you also submitted a FOIA request (2025-FOIA-00006) for all records and information pertaining to the NCUA’s investigation and subsequent determination regarding your complaint number 239587 filed on October 5, 2024, against XXXX Federal Credit Union. This complaint alleged violations of the FCRA, retaliation, and extortion.
Your requests 2025-FOIA-00003, 2025-FOIA-00004, 2025-FOIA-00005, and 2025-FOIA-00006 (collectively, Initial FOIA Requests), asked for responsive records including the complete investigative file; copies of internal NCUA policies, procedures, and guidelines governing the investigation and adjudication of consumer complaints; all records of communication between the NCUA and XXXX Federal Credit Union or its representatives regarding this investigation; and any records of prior complaints filed against XXXX Federal Credit Union with the NCUA, and any records of enforcement actions taken by the NCUA against XXXX Federal Credit Union in the past five years.
You requested expedited processing of your Initial FOIA Requests. On December 12, 2024, the NCUA FOIA Processing Center (FOIA Office) denied your requests for expedited processing of your Initial FOIA Requests. On the same date, you appealed the denials of your requests for expedited processing of your Initial FOIA Requests. After an independent review, your appeals were denied on January 13, 2025, and you were notified that your Initial FOIA Requests would continue to be processed in normal course. See 2025-APP-00001, 2025-APP-00002, 2025-APP-00003, and 2025-APP-00004.
On January 8, 2025, you were notified by the FOIA Office that your requests necessitated additional time to consult on the records, and the response time for your requests was being extended to January 23, 2025.
By letter of January 22, 2025, your Initial FOIA Requests were granted in part. A total of 2,776 pages of responsive records were sent to you,1 with certain information redacted and withheld pursuant to FOIA exemptions 5 U.S.C. §§552 (b)(2), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (b)(8). The FOIA Office explained that subsection (b)(2) (Exemption 2) exempts from mandatory disclosure records that are related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency. Subsection (b)(4) (Exemption 4) protects from disclosure trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person, which is considered privileged or confidential. Subsection (b)(5) (Exemption 5) protects interagency or intra-agency memoranda or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency. Subsection (b)(6) (Exemption 6) protects information about individuals when its disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Subsection (b)(8) (Exemption 8) protects matters that are contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions. The FOIA Office also explained that the foreseeable harm standard was considered when reviewing records and applying FOIA exemptions.
On January 22, 2025, you appealed the partial denials of your Initial FOIA Requests in a single email correspondence. You also requested expedited processing of your appeals 2025-APP-00005, 2025-APP-00006, 2025-APP-00007, and 2025-APP-00008 (collectively, Request for Expedited Appeals). After due consideration, by letter of January 28, 2025, your Request for Expedited Appeals was denied and you were notified that your appeals would continue to be processed in normal course. Because you combined your appeals jointly in a single filing, we responded to your Request for Expedited Appeals collectively. Likewise, this letter responds collectively to your appeals 2025-APP-00005, 2025-APP-00006, 2025-APP-00007, and 2025-APP-00008.
In your notice of appeal, you assert that “[t]he NCUA has improperly withheld information under FOIA Exemptions (b)(2), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (b)(8) providing inadequate justifications and failing to demonstrate that disclosure would result in reasonably foreseeable harm as required by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016.” You note that “[f]or each redaction, the agency has merely asserted that harm is foreseeable without providing any specific, detailed explanation of what that harm is, how it is connected to the specific information withheld, and how it relates to the exemptions cited.”
Upon a full and independent review, your appeal is denied, as discussed more fully below.
Exemption 2
The FOIA provides that an agency may withhold responsive records if the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by one of the nine exemptions that the FOIA enumerates or disclosure is prohibited by law.2
In your appeal, you contend that the NCUA’s use of Exemption (b)(2) “appears overly broad and unjustified.”
Exemption 2 exempts from mandatory disclosure agency records that are “related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.”3 Generally, there are three elements that must be satisfied for information to fit within Exemption 2: (1) the information must be related to “personnel” rules and practices; (2) the information must relate “solely” to those personnel rules and practices; and (3) the information must be “internal.”4
Under this three-part test, consistent with its plain meaning, the term “personnel” covers “‘the formulations of policies, procedures, and relations with [or involving] employees or their representatives,’”5 and records “dealing with employee relations or human resources,” which “concern the conditions of employment in federal agencies.”6 In applying the test’s second prong, the term “solely” is given its usual meaning of “exclusively or only.”7 For purposes of the test’s third prong, the information must be “‘internal,’ meaning that ‘the agency must typically keep the records to itself for its own use.’”8
Redacted and withheld information responsive to your requests consists of information that meets the three-part test described above. The redacted and withheld information is related to personnel rules and practices and relates exclusively to those personnel matters. The information is internal to the NCUA and ordinarily kept within the agency for internal agency use. Additionally, it is reasonably foreseeable that the full disclosure of the requested internal agency personnel records, which deal solely with personnel rules and practices, would cause harm to the agency’s employer-employee relationship and incumber frank and open communications between agency leadership and staff. Thus, Exemption 2 is applicable.
Exemption 4
You argue in your appeal that the NCUA “has not provided sufficient evidence that the redacted information constitutes ‘trade secrets’ or ‘confidential commercial or financial information’ obtained from a person,” and that the agency “has failed to demonstrate that the information was provided voluntarily and is not of the type customarily released to the public, or if required, the disclosure would not cause substantial competitive harm.”
Exemption 4 protects “commercial or financial information” obtained from a person9 that is “privileged or confidential.”10 When Exemption 4 is implicated, courts have held that the interest protected by Exemption 4 is the information’s confidentiality.11 The term “confidential” is given its “ordinary” meaning of “private” or “secret” for purposes of Exemption 4.12 Thus, if commercial or financial information is held in confidence and given to the government under an assurance of confidentiality, the foreseeable harm standard is satisfied and the information may be withheld.13
The records you requested contain sensitive and proprietary information that qualifies as confidential commercial or financial information that is within the scope of Exemption 4. Such sensitive commercial or financial information would customarily be treated as private commercial or financial information by the XXXX Federal Credit Union. The requested information is in possession of the NCUA due to its regulatory and supervisory relationship with the credit union, which lends support to an implied assurance of confidentiality for purposes of Exemption 4.
Also, pursuant to Executive Order 12600 and 12 C.F.R. § 792.29, the FOIA Office conducted the submitter notice process to further validate the use of Exemption 4.14 That is, the FOIA Office notified the submitter, XXXX Federal Credit Union, of your request and afforded the submitter time to object to the disclosure of specified portions of the responsive information. The FOIA Office carefully considered the reply from the submitter in making the determination to withhold certain sensitive portions of the requested records under Exemption 4. The information you requested appeared to be confidential, had been treated as confidential, and was confirmed to be confidential via the submitter’s notice process. For all these reasons, the use of Exemption 4 is upheld.
Exemption 5
You assert that the NCUA’s reliance on the deliberative process privilege under Exemption 5 is “flawed” because the agency “has not demonstrated that the redacted information is both pre-decisional and deliberative.” Further, you contend that the “public interest in understanding the agency’s decision-making process, particularly regarding the handling of FCRA complaints, outweighs any speculative harm the agency might assert.”
Exemption 5 incorporates the deliberative process privilege, the attorney-client privilege, and the attorney work product privilege.15 The deliberative process privilege is generally intended to “prevent injury to the quality of agency decisions.”16 The privilege protects “debate and candid consideration of alternatives,” thus improving agency decision making.17 After all, “experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor . . . to the detriment of the decision-making process.”18 Records are protected as pre-decisional and deliberative where they are “antecedent to the adoption of an agency policy,”19 and where they are “part of the deliberative process in that it makes recommendations or expresses opinions on legal or policy matters.”20
Information contained in the records you requested is pre-decisional and deliberative and its full disclosure will harm the agency’s decision-making process. Certain responsive records are in draft form and antecedent to the adoption of agency policy and procedure and contain internal redline edits that reflect the agency’s deliberative process that, if fully disclosed, will hinder the free flow of ideas and open communication among agency staff. Additionally, full disclosure of requested records will undermine public confidence by creating confusion about the agency’s policies relative to the consumer complaint process because the records include draft policies and procedures under consideration by the NCUA, some of which have not been adopted by the agency. In light of these reasonably foreseeable harms, redacted records were properly withheld under Exemption 5.
Exemption 6
While acknowledging the need to protect personal privacy, you argue that the NCUA’s use of Exemption 6 “appears overly broad in several instances.” Further, you contend that “[g]iven the evidence of a pattern of dismissed complaints and potential regulatory capture, the public interest here is substantial and may, in many cases, outweigh individual privacy interests.”
Under the FOIA, Exemption 6 protects information about individuals in “personnel and medical files and similar files” when the disclosure of such information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.21 Determining whether information warrants protection under Exemption 6 requires a four-step analysis: (1) determine whether the information is a personnel, medical, or “similar” file;22 (2) determine whether there is a significant privacy interest in the requested information;23 (3) evaluate the requester’s asserted FOIA public interest in disclosure;24 and (4) if there is a significant privacy interest in non-disclosure and a FOIA public interest in disclosure, balance those competing interests to determine whether disclosure “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”25
Exemption 6 is interpreted broadly, and all information that “applies to a particular individual” meets the threshold requirement of falling within the category of “personnel and medical files and similar files” to warrant protection under Exemption 6.26 In this case, the requested records include personally identifying information (PII) that applies to particular credit union employees and private citizens participating in the Consumer Assistance Center complaint process. Thus, the threshold requirement is satisfied.
Additionally, there is a significant privacy interest in the requested PII. PII is vulnerable to phishing, spoofing, identity theft, and other cybersecurity attacks and has been found to implicate a substantial privacy interest cognizable under the FOIA.27
Since a substantial privacy interest may be infringed by the disclosure of the requested PII, the next steps of the analysis require an assessment of the asserted public interest followed by a “balancing of the public interest served by disclosure against the harm resulting from the invasion of privacy.”28 When the disclosure of requested information could result in the invasion of personal privacy, the burden is on the requester to establish that disclosure would serve a public interest.29 The only relevant public interest in disclosure is the extent to which disclosure would serve the “core purpose of the FOIA,” which is “contributing significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government.”30 “That purpose, however, is not fostered by disclosure of information about private citizens that is accumulated in various governmental files but that reveals little or nothing about an agency’s own conduct.”31
Your appeal argues that there is a substantial public interest in disclosing information that could show a pattern of dismissed complaints and potential regulatory capture that may outweigh individual privacy interests. In balancing the competing interests, however, the public interest in disclosing information that could contribute to public understanding of the NCUA’s handling of consumer complaints is outweighed by the personal privacy interests of credit union employees and private citizens who have filed consumer complaints with the agency. Disclosure of credit union employee and private consumer PII would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy yet reveal little or nothing about the agency’s conduct in responding to consumer complaints. Accordingly, the PII concerning employees of the XXXX Federal Credit Union and private consumers was properly redacted and withheld under Exemption 6.
Exemption 8
Your appeal challenges the applicability of Exemption 8, noting that use of the exemption in this case “should not be used to shield evidence of inadequate investigations or potential regulatory capture.”
Exemption 8 was intended by Congress, and has been interpreted by courts, to be “very broadly construed.”32 Courts have noted that “Congress has intentionally and unambiguously crafted a particularly broad, all-inclusive definition,” and “it is not [the courts’] function, even in the FOIA context, to subvert that effort.”33 The primary purpose for Exemption 8 is “to ensure the security of financial institutions by elimination of the risk that disclosure of examination, operation, and condition reports containing frank evaluations of the investigated [institutions] might undermine public confidence and cause unwarranted run on banks.”34 The secondary purpose is to safeguard the relationship between financial institutions and their supervising agencies.35 Generally, “all records, regardless of the source, of [a financial institution’s] financial condition and operations [that are] in the possession of a federal agency ‘responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions,’ are exempt.”36 Documents “related to” examination reports that “represent the foundation of the examination process, the findings of such an examination, or its follow-up” also fall within the exemption.37 Information you requested meets this broad standard insofar as it relates to examination reports or the examination process. Thus, the requested records were properly redacted and withheld pursuant to Exemption 8.
Reasonably Segregable
If an agency determines that it cannot or should not make full disclosure of a requested record, the FOIA calls for agencies to “consider whether partial disclosure of information is possible” and “take reasonable steps necessary to segregate and release nonexempt information.”38 However, the NCUA is not required to disclose information “inextricably intertwined with exempt portions,”39 and “need not disclose a redacted version of [a record] if the unredacted markings would have minimal or no information content.”40
The unredacted portions of the 2,776 pages of documents that were provided to you consist of the reasonably segregable portions of the agency’s responsive records that can be disclosed without causing reasonably foreseeable harm to agency and staff relations, agency decision-making and public confidence, agency relations with supervised entities, or cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The information that was redacted and withheld is fully exempt under one or more of Exemptions 2, 4, 5, 6, or 8, or inextricably intertwined with exempt portions of the records. Accordingly, the redacted and withheld information was properly withheld as exempt pursuant to one or more FOIA exemptions.
Responsive Records
You assert that the NCUA included “numerous redacted FCRA complaints filed by other individuals against the XXXX Federal Credit Union” that were “both irrelevant to my requests and a potential violation of those individuals’ privacy.” You assert that the inclusion of those records demonstrates bath faith on the part of the agency.
The FOIA does not define what constitutes a responsive record. Consequently, “agencies . . . in effect define a ‘record’ when they undertake the process of identifying records that are responsive to a request.”41 There are a “range of possible ways in which an agency might conceive of a ‘record’.”42 “[O]nce an agency identifies a record it deems responsive to a FOIA request, the statute compels disclosure of the entire responsive record—i.e., as a unit—except insofar as the agency may redact information falling within a statutory exemption.”43
Your Initial FOIA Requests asked for records including, among others, “any records of prior complaints filed against XXXX Federal Credit Union with the NCUA.”
The redacted consumer FCRA complaint records included among the records that were provided to you were determined by the NCUA, in good faith, to be responsive to your request for “any records of prior complaints” filed with the agency against XXXX Federal Credit Union. Once the agency determined the consumer complaint records were responsive to your request, the NCUA was obligated under the FOIA to disclose the collection of those materials in their entirety (i.e., as a unit), except for necessary redactions of exempt information. Therefore, the scope of the consumer complaint records that were responsive to your request was appropriate.
Time Limits
Your appeal notes that you received the FOIA Office’s responses to your Initial FOIA Requests on January 22, 2025, “47 [calendar] days after submitting [your] initial requests.” You contend that “the responses were not only unduly delayed but also substantively inadequate, demonstrating a pattern of obstruction and a failure to comply with the requirements of the FOIA.”
Under ordinary circumstances, the FOIA provides that an agency receiving a proper FOIA request must “determine within 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with such request.”44 The agency need not actually produce the documents within that 20 working-day time period, but it must indicate within the relevant time period the scope of the documents it will produce and the exemptions it will claim with respect to any withheld documents.45 If the agency makes a determination to comply with the request, the records “shall be made promptly available to such person making such request.”46
In “unusual circumstances,” an agency may extend the 20 working-day time limit for processing a FOIA request up to an additional 10 working days by providing written notice to the requester “setting forth the unusual circumstances for such extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched.”47 For purposes of the FOIA, “unusual circumstances” means (1) the need to search for and collect records “from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office” processing the request; (2) the need to search for, collect, and examine “a voluminous amount” of records “demanded in a single request”; and (3) the need to consult with another agency or two or more agency components.48
In this case, your Initial FOIA Requests were made on December 6, 2024. Thus, counting 20 days excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays,49 the NCUA’s determination on your requests was due by January 8, 2025. By letter of January 8, 2025, the FOIA Office provided timely notification that, pursuant to 12 C.F.R. §792.16(a)(1),(2),(3), your request necessitated additional time to consult on the records and the response time was being extended to January 23, 2025,50 pursuant to 12 C.F.R. §792.15.
The extension beyond the standard twenty-day time period was justified by “unusual circumstances” because of the need to search for and collect records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the FOIA Office and the need to search for, collect, and examine the voluminous amount of records sought in each of your requests. Specifically, to respond to your Initial FOIA Requests, the FOIA Office needed to search for and collect voluminous records from the NCUA Office of Consumer Financial Protection, and to complete the mandatory submitter notice process with the XXXX Federal Credit Union (i.e., facilities or agency components that are separate from the FOIA Office).
Vaughn Index
Finally, you have requested a so-called “Vaughn index,” which is an index of withheld documents or portions of documents that a plaintiff in a FOIA litigation is entitled to.51
Your administrative appeals are outside the litigation context. The agency declines to provide a Vaughn index in this matter. However, consistent with the agency’s standard practice, the redacted documents provided to you are marked with the FOIA exemption(s) invoked for each redaction.
For the above reasons, your appeals, 2025-APP-00005, 2025-APP-00006, 2025-APP-00007, and 2025-APP-00008, are denied. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(B) of the FOIA, you may seek judicial review of this determination by filing suit against the NCUA. Such a suit may be filed in the United States District Court where you reside, where your principal place of business is located, the District of Columbia, or where the documents are located (the Eastern District of Virginia).
The 2007 FOIA amendments created the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) to offer mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. Using OGIS services does not affect your right to pursue litigation. You may contact OGIS in any of the following ways:
Office of Government Information Services
National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road - OGIS
College Park, MD 20740-6001 E-mail: ogis@nara.gov
Web: https://ogis.archives.gov
Telephone: 202-741-5770; Toll-free: 877-684-6448
Fax: 202-741-5769
Sincerely,
/s/
Frank Kressman
General Counsel
GC/PY
2025-APP-00005; 2025-APP-00006; 2025-APP-00007; 2025-APP-00008
Footnotes
1 Of the 2,776 total pages, 1,897 pages were provided to you in response to 2025-FOIA-00003; 435 pages were provided to you in response to 2025-FOIA-00004; 226 pages were provided to you in response to 2025-FOIA-00005; and 218 pages were provided to you in response to 2025-FOIA-00006.
2 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A)(i).
3 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2).
4 See Milner v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy, 562 U.S. 562, 570 & n.4 (2011).
5 Id. at 569.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 570 n.4
8 Id.
9 The FOIA defines “person” as an “individual, partnership, corporation, association, or public or private organization other than an agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(2).
10 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4).
11 American Small Business League v. Department of Defense, 3:18-cv-01979-WHA (N.D. Cal. 2019) ECF No. 153 at 14.
12 Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356, 2363 (2019) (finding that “where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is ‘confidential’ within the meaning of Exemption 4.”).
13 American Small Business League at 14 (citing Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader, 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019).
14 See 12 C.F.R. § 792.29; E.O. 12600 (June 23, 1987).
15 Id.
16 NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 151 (1975).
17 Jordan v. DOJ, 591 F.2d 753, 772 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (en banc).
18 Machado Amadis v. United States Dep't of State, 971 F.3d 364, 371 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (quoting Sears at 150–51 (quotation marks omitted)).
19 Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dep't of State, 641 F.3d 504, 513 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Jordan v. DOJ, 591 F.2d 753, 774 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (en banc)); see also Adamowicz v. IRS, 672 F. Supp. 2d 454, 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (protecting documents that “reflect the consultative process” underlying an agency’s decisions).
20 Vaughn v. Rosen, 523 F.2d 1136, 1143-44 (D.C. Cir. 1975).
21 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6).
22 Id.
23 See Multi Ag Media LLC v. USDA, 515 F.3d 1224, 1229 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
24 See NARA v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 172 (2004).
25 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(6); see also Favish, 541 U.S. 157 at 172.
26 U.S. Dep’t of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595, 602 (1982).
27 See, e.g., Wadhwa v. VA, 707 F. App’x 61, 63-64 (3d Cir. 2017) (protecting personally identifying information, including names, phone numbers, and email addresses, concerning individuals involved in adjudication of discrimination complaints in absence of any FOIA public interest); Int’l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers Loc. Union No. 5 v. HUD, 852 F.2d 87, 89 (3d Cir. 1988) (perceiving no public interest in disclosure and therefore protecting employees’ social security numbers); Pubien v. EOUSA, No. 18-0172, 2018 WL 5923917, at *5 (D.D.C. Nov. 13, 2018) (finding names subject to withholding because plaintiff failed to identify any FOIA public interest in disclosure); Maryland v. VA, 130 F. Supp. 3d 342, 353 (D.D.C. 2015) (protecting identifying portions of email addresses of individuals whose businesses were not selected for inclusion in small business database because public interest in such information was “practically nonexistent”).
28 Int’l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers Loc. Union No. 5, 852 F.2d at 89.
29 See NARA v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004).
30 Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n, Local Union No. 19 v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 135 F.3d 891, 897 (3d Cir. 1998) (citing U.S. Dep’t of Defense et al. v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 510 U.S. 487, 495–496 (1994)); see also Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 372 (1976) (noting information that serves the “basic purpose” of the FOIA to “open agency action to the light of public scrutiny” constitutes a FOIA public interest in disclosure).
31 Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989) (quoting Rose, 425 U.S. at 360–361).
32 Pentagon Fed. Credit Union v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., No. 95-1475, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22841, at *11 (E.D. Va. June 7, 1996).
33 Consumers Union of the U.S., Inc. v. Heimann, 589 F.2d 531, 533 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
34 James Madison Project v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 478 F. Supp. 3d 8, 14 (D.D.C. 2020) (internal citation omitted); see also McKinley v. FDIC, 744 F. Supp. 2d 128, 144 (D.D.C. 2010) (noting that the FDIC’s “ability to gather . . . information in furtherance of its mission to regulate our nation’s banking system would inarguably be compromised” if contemporaneous information about a bank’s failure was released).
35 See Consumers Union, 589 F.2d at 534; see also Fagot v. FDIC, 584 F. Supp. 1168, 1173 (D.P.R. 1984) (recognizing Exemption 8’s secondary purpose “to provide banks and financial institutions supervised by the federal government sufficient assurance of confidentiality to promote full cooperation with the regulatory agencies”).
36 McCullough v. FDIC, No. 79-1132, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17685, at **7-8 (D.D.C. July 28, 1980) (quoting legislative history).
37 Atkinson v. FDIC, No. 79-1113, 1980 WL 355660, at *2 (D.D.C. Feb. 13, 1980).
38 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A)(ii).
39 Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 260 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
40 Perioperative Servs. & Logistics, LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 57 F.4th 1061, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (citing Mead Data Center, Inc. v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 261 n.55 (D.C. Cir. 1977)).
41 American Immigration Lawyers Association v. EOIR, 830 F.3d 667, 668 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
42 Id.
43 Id.
44 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i).
45 CREW v. FEC, 711 F.3d 180, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (if agency does not adhere to the FOIA’s timelines, the “penalty” is the agency cannot rely on administrative exhaustion requirement.).
46 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i); see CREW, 711 F.3d at 189 (finding that an agency may need additional time after processing and making a determination on a FOIA request to physically redact, duplicate, or assemble for production responsive documents; however, the “agency must do so and then produce records ‘promptly’”.).
47 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(i); see CREW, 711 F.3d at 189 (noting that agencies can extend the usual 20 working-day timeline to up to 30 working days if unusual circumstances delay its ability to search for, collect, examine, and consult regarding responsive documents.).
48 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(iii).
49 The relevant time period included the following legal public holidays: December 24, 2024 (federal government closure pursuant to Executive Order 14129 of December 18, 2024); December 25, 2024 (Christmas Day); and January 1, 2025 (New Year’s Day).
50 The relevant time period included the following legal public holidays: January 9, 2025 (federal government closure pursuant to Executive Order 14133 of December 30, 2024); and January 20, 2025 (Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Inauguration Day).
51 See Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974).