Prudential Locations LLC v. Hud., CIV. No. 09-00128 SOM/KSC.
| Decision Date | 27 July 2009 |
| Docket Number | CIV. No. 09-00128 SOM/KSC. |
| Parties | PRUDENTIAL LOCATIONS LLC, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
Jason H. Kim, Paul Alston, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff.
Thomas A. Helper, Office of the United States Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S COUNTER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Prudential Locations LLC ("Prudential") brings this action under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 ("FOIA"), to compel production of information redacted from two documents produced by Defendant United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") regarding investigations into potential violations of the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act ("RESPA"). HUD claims it is entitled to withhold the information under FOIA's privacy exemption, which protects personal information contained in government files. Prudential has moved for summary judgment, and HUD has filed a counter motion for summary judgment. All material facts are undisputed. For the following reasons, Prudential's motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and HUD's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
Summary judgment shall be granted when
the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods., Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir.2006); Porter v. Cal. Dep't of Corr., 419 F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir.2005). One of the principal purposes of summary judgment is to identify and dispose of factually unsupported claims and defenses. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Accordingly, "[o]nly admissible evidence may be considered in deciding a motion for summary judgment." Miller, 454 F.3d at 988.
Summary judgment must be granted against a party that fails to demonstrate facts to establish what will be an essential element at trial. See id. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. A moving party has both the initial burden of production and the ultimate burden of persuasion on a motion for summary judgment. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir.2000). The burden initially falls on the moving party to identify for the court "those portions of the materials on file that it believes demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact." T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.1987) (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548); accord Miller, 454 F.3d at 987. "A fact is material if it could affect the outcome of the suit under the governing substantive law." Miller, 454 F.3d at 987.
The parties agree that no material facts are in dispute. Both Prudential and HUD have filed motions for summary judgment, and each claims that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
In 2003, HUD initiated an investigation of Prudential for alleged RESPA violations. On June 18, 2008, Prudential requested all complaints, inquiries, and correspondence from HUD regarding the investigations. On March 16, 2009, after receiving payment for retrieval and duplication of materials, HUD provided approximately 400 pages of documents in response to Prudential's request. Prudential says that only two of these documents were relevant: an email and a letter alleging violations by Prudential. The two documents at issue contained redactions. HUD describes the redacted portions as containing the names, addresses, and identifying information of two citizens who had lodged complaints against Prudential and a Prudential agent, and it cites the privacy exemption of FOIA to justify its decision to withhold the information.
Prudential asked HUD to reconsider its decision to redact the information, and HUD denied this appeal on April 15, 2009. HUD noted that the author of the email had requested anonymity, and the author of the letter had not affirmatively authorized release of his name. HUD says that its practice in RESPA investigations is to protect the identity of persons supplying information to prevent retaliation and avoid a chilling effect on potential informants. Prudential insists that the identity of the individuals who instigated the RESPA investigations should be exposed, so that the public may know who is influencing government action. Prudential further alleges that the authors of the correspondence acted out of malice or competitive self-interest, as shown by statements in the correspondence that Prudential describes as "incorrect, incomplete, and grossly misleading." Prudential mentions the possibility of a civil lawsuit against the unidentified individuals for their "sham" complaints.
This action arises under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, which mandates the production of government agency materials requested by members of the public. Congress intended the public to use FOIA "to ensure an informed citizenry . . . needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed." NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242, 98 S.Ct. 2311, 57 L.Ed.2d 159 (1978). The Court has elaborated that FOIA is intended "to pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny." Dep't of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 382, 96 S.Ct. 1592, 48 L.Ed.2d 11 (1976) (citations omitted).
As a result, FOIA reflects "a general philosophy of full agency disclosure unless information is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language." Id. at 360-361, 96 S.Ct. 1592 (internal quotation marks omitted). "An agency may deny disclosure of its records only if the information falls within one of the nine statutory exemptions to the disclosure requirement under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)." Dobronski v. FCC, 17 F.3d 275, 280 (9th Cir.1994) (citing Multnomah County Medical Soc'y v. Scott, 825 F.2d 1410, 1413 (9th Cir.1987)). Those exemptions are to be "narrowly construed." Rose, 425 U.S. at 382, 96 S.Ct. 1592.
"The government has the burden of establishing that one of the exemptions applies." Id. See also Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg & Roger on Behalf of Carpet, Linoleum, etc., Local 1288 v. NLRB, 728 F.2d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir.1984) ( ).
HUD argues that FOIA's exemption 6, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), protects the redacted information from disclosure. That section excludes from FOIA's production mandate "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." This exemption is consistent with FOIA's purpose of ensuring government accountability by publicizing "official information that sheds light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties." U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 773, 109 S.Ct. 1468, 103 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989) (citations omitted). The Court has explained that this purpose "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." Id.
To qualify for exemption 6, as a threshold requirement, the materials in question must be "personnel and medical files and similar files." "Similar files" is read broadly to include any "[g]overnment records on an individual which can be identified as applying to that individual." U.S. Dep't of State v. Washington Post, Co., 456 U.S. 595, 602, 102 S.Ct. 1957, 72 L.Ed.2d 358 (1982) ().
The Ninth Circuit has explained, "Government records containing information that applies to particular individuals satisfy the threshold test of Exemption 6." Van Bourg, 728 F.2d at 1273 ().
The files at issue here are analogous to personnel files. The redacted information contains the names and addresses of persons who have lodged RESPA complaints against Prudential and the name of a Prudential agent involved in one of the transactions. The Ninth Circuit has confirmed that, with regard to "similar files" in exemption six, "[l]ists of names and addresses meet this definition." Minnis v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, 737 F.2d 784, 788 (9th Cir.1984).
As the redacted materials meet this threshold requirement, the court must determine if exposure of the information would be a "clearly unwarranted" invasion of privacy. This involves balancing the individuals' privacy claims and the public's interest in disclosure. According to the Ninth Circuit, the statutory requirement of a "clearly unwarranted" invasion of privacy "instructs us to tilt the balance of disclosure interests against privacy interests in favor of disclosure." United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus., Local 598 v. Dep't of the Army, Corps of Eng'rs, 841 F.2d 1459, 1464 (9th Cir.1988) (citations omitted).
HUD asserts that the individuals who provided...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prudential Locations LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev.
...court held that Exemption 6 justifies the agency's decision to redact identifying information. Prudential Locations LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev., 646 F.Supp.2d 1221 (D.Hawai'i 2009). We affirm.A. Background HUD is the agency responsible for administering and enforcing RESPA, 12......
-
Prudential Locations Llc v. U.S. Dep't of Hous.
...of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6); see Prudential Locations LLC v. HUD, 646 F.Supp.2d 1221, 1228 (D.Haw.2009). Under the case law, Exemption 6 requires courts to balance the personal privacy interests protected by the exempti......