United Technologies Corp. v. U.S. Department of Defense

601 F.3d 557 (D.C.Cir. 2010)

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) and the Pratt and Whitney Division (Pratt) of United Technologies Corporation appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Department of Defense (Defense or DoD) and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) [DCMA is an agency of the Department of Defense. All references to DoD herein refer to DCMA as well.] In Sikorsky's and Pratt's separate lawsuits to prevent the release of certain DCMA documents evaluating their respective quality control processes. Sikorsky and Pratt contend that DCMA's decision to release the documents was arbitrary and capricious in that it failed to properly apply Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). We agree and remand.

This is a “reverse-FOIA” case. In enacting FOIA, the Congress sought to balance the public's interest in governmental transparency against legitimate governmental and private interests that could be harmed by release of certain types of information. When an agency determines, pursuant to a FOIA request, to disclose information gathered from a non-governmental source, the source may contest the disclosure as arbitrary and capricious or not in accordance with law under the Administrative Procedure Act.

As relevant here, Exemption 4 exempts confidential information from FOIA's scope. According to the test we articulated in National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C.Cir.1974), and reaffirmed en banc in Critical Mass, if a person is required to provide information to the United States, the information is confidential under Exemption 4 only if its disclosure would be likely either (1) to impair the Government's ability to obtain necessary information in the future; or (2) to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained.

Sikorsky makes helicopters and Pratt makes aircraft engines. Both companies are wholly owned by United Technologies Corporation. Both have various foreign and domestic military and civilian customers and both sell their products to the United States.

DCMA monitors defense contractors, including Sikorsky and Pratt, to ensure they satisfy their contractual obligations when providing services and supplies to the United States. It keeps a regular presence at Sikorsky's and Pratt's facilities. If it discovers a problem, it notifies the contractor and may issue a “Corrective Action Request” (CAR) or an audit report to the contractor to remedy the problem.

In March 2004 a New Haven, Connecticut television reporter submitted a FOIA request to the regional DCMA office (DCMA East) for, in pertinent part, all CARs DCMA had issued to Sikorsky over the past year regarding the Black Hawk helicopter. The Director of DCMA East initially denied the request, concluding under Exemption 4 their release “will significantly impair DCMA's ability to obtain the same quality of information from Sikorsky and from other Defense contractors in the future.” Letter from Keith D. Ernst, Director, DCMA East, to Alan M. Cohn, WTNH–TV (May 7, 2004). The reporter then appealed the denial within DCMA. In response, the DCMA FOIA Appeal Authority reviewed the documents and reversed DCMA East's decision.

DCMA's Office of General Counsel then notified Sikorsky by letter that it planned to release the CARs, stating DCMA's new position that none of them fell under Exemption 4. Sikorsky disagreed. Citing National Parks, Sikorsky argued that Exemption 4 applied because the documents' release would likely cause Sikorsky substantial competitive harm and would significantly impair DCMA's future ability to obtain the same detail and quality of information from Sikorsky and other DoD contractors. Specifically, it asserted that the CARs included proprietary information regarding Sikorsky's manufacturing process and procedures and that release of this proprietary information would substantially harm Sikorsky's competitive position because its competitors would use this information to their advantage in adjusting their manufacturing techniques.

Nevertheless, in a letter dated December 1, 2005, the DCMA FOIA Appeal Authority informed Sikorsky that DCMA had made a final agency decision to release the CARs to the reporter. In so doing, it rejected Sikorsky's substantial competitive harm argument, stating that the asserted harm “appears to be one of suffering embarrassment in the market place,” which is an “insufficient” basis on which to prevent disclosure. It also rejected Sikorsky's “impairment” argument, stating that “the question of impairment is a question for the agency and not for Sikorsky” and concluding that “release of the CARs would not impair the Government's ability to obtain the same kind of information in the future.”

In December 2004 a Hartford, Connecticut newspaper reporter submitted a FOIA request to DCMA East for audit reports and CARs. DCMA East notified Pratt of the request and asked Pratt to flag any documents it believed were exempt from disclosure. Pratt responded that “most of the information contained in these documents is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4.” Citing National Parks, it argued that the exemption applied because disclosure would “likely cause substantial harm to its competitive position” and “would likely impair the ability of DCMA to obtain information of the same quality, reliability, and detail in the future.” It submitted several affidavits supporting its claim to the Exemption. For example, its Director of Quality Military Engines attested that “a competitor with similar expertise could and would use the information to gain insights into the strengths and weaknesses of P & W's quality control system as well as manufacturing techniques and use those insights to revise and improve its own quality control and manufacturing systems.” It also offered a set of the documents from which it had redacted the purportedly exempt information.

DCMA East replied to Pratt in October 2005, concluding that Exemption 4 did not cover the documents except for the portions DCMA had itself redacted. It stated:

Applying the criteria established in National Parks to the documents at issue here, we conclude that release of the documents will not impair the Government's ability to obtain from Pratt & Whitney (or any other contractors) essential information about their quality systems. With respect to the competitive harm prong of National Parks, we concluded that, with the exception of the actual quality system provisions themselves, which were redacted, the release of the documents would not likely result in substantial competitive harm to Pratt & Whitney.

Pratt sought reconsideration, elaborating on the same arguments it had originally made. But DCMA East did not budge; it said, “While we agree that National Parks is the appropriate legal standard of review, we disagree that release of the documents as redacted would significantly impair DCMA's ability to obtain necessary quality assurance system information from P & W and other contractors in the future, a decision solely within DCMA's purview.” In addition, it said:

We acknowledge that competition in the propulsion industry is fierce. However, with the exception of the information that we have already redacted, we do not believe that P & W has established the likelihood of substantial competitive harm flowing from any competitor’s affirmative use of the information contained in the DCMA documents. At most, we believe that release of the information could be embarrassing to P & W. But, embarrassment does not rise to the level of substantial competitive harm of the type recognized by the courts.

In late 2005 Sikorsky and Pratt filed separate suits in the district court against DoD, each alleging that DCMA's decision to release the documents was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law under the APA. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief preventing the documents' disclosure. The district court granted summary judgment to DoD in both cases in September 2008. Although the court found that the documents' release would reveal the safety measures and quality control procedures in Plaintiff's manufacturing, it determined that the documents did not fall under Exemption 4. According to the court, the gravamen of both complaints was that disclosure would cause “embarrassment or negative publicity,” a type of harm not recognized under Exemption 4. The court also held that DCMA's ability to obtain similar information in the future would not be so impaired as to render the documents exempt from disclosure. Sikorsky and Pratt timely appealed.

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. When the district court decision under review itself reviews agency action under the APA, we, like the district court, will reverse the agency action only if it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. This standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Nevertheless, the agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.

In order for the documents to be exempt from disclosure, their release must be likely to cause the contractors substantial competitive harm or impair the Government's ability to obtain necessary information in the future. To qualify under this prong, an identified harm must flow from the affirmative use of proprietary information by competitors. In reviewing an agency's determination as to substantial competitive harm, we recognize that predictive judgments are not capable of exact proof, and we generally defer to the agency's predictive judgments as to the repercussions of disclosure. If a reverse-FOIA movant has made a positive showing of competitive harm from disclosure, however, an agency's unelaborated contrary conclusion does not suffice.

Sikorsky and Pratt maintain that disclosure of the documents will cause two types of substantial competitive harm. First, they say that their competitors will use the documents to discredit them in the eyes of current and potential customers. They worry especially that their competitors will use the information and the accompanying negative publicity to persuade foreign costumers that DoD has found Sikorsky's and Pratt's quality control systems unreliable and, accordingly, their products' quality suspect. Because foreign customers are unfamiliar with DoD's exacting oversight, they reason, those customers will overreact to the disclosed information and Sikorsky's and Pratt's reputation will suffer as a result. Contrary to Sikorsky and Pratt's contentions, however, Exemption 4 does not protect against this species of harm. Calling customers' attention to unfavorable agency evaluations or unfavorable press does not amount to an affirmative use of proprietary information by competitors.

Second, Sikorsky and Pratt maintain that the documents contain sensitive proprietary information about their quality control processes. Pratt's Director of Quality Military Engines attested that a competitor with similar expertise could and would use the information to gain insights into the strengths and weaknesses of P & W's quality control system as well as manufacturing techniques and use those insights to revise and improve its own quality control and manufacturing systems. Similarly, Sikorsky asserted that proprietary information regarding Sikorsky's manufacturing process and procedures is inextricably intertwined with the quality control information included in the CARs and it asserted that release of this proprietary information would substantially harm Sikorsky's competitive position because its competitors would use this information to their advantage in adjusting their manufacturing techniques. In response, DCMA simply stated that it had redacted all of the sensitive proprietary information and concluded that disclosure of the remaining information was not likely to cause the contractors substantial competitive harm.

We find DCMA's response insufficient. The documents, even as redacted by DCMA, appear to reveal details about Sikorsky's and Pratt's proprietary manufacturing and quality control processes. At the least, they identify and locate particular parts and equipment and describe the timing and criteria of internal inspections. In other words, the documents describe, in part, how the contractors build and inspect helicopters and/or engines. Once disclosed, competitors could, it appears, use the information to improve their own manufacturing and quality control systems, thus making affirmative use of proprietary information against which Exemption 4 is meant to guard.

We believe that DCMA failed to provide a reasoned basis for its conclusion to the contrary. To be sure, as it repeatedly stated, mere embarrassment or reputational harm is not sufficient to trigger Exemption 4. But where, as here, a contractor pinpoints by letter and affidavit technical information it believes that its competitors can use in their own operations, the agency must explain why substantial competitive harm is not likely to result if the information is disclosed. DCMA instead concluded, without more, that release of the documents will not cause Sikorsky or Pratt substantial competitive harm. A naked conclusion, however, is not enough. Accordingly, because DCMA's conclusory statement is unreviewable we must remand for it to examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action, if it can, including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand to the district court with instructions to remand to DoD for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.