Legal Opinion: GMP-0115

Index: 7.340, 7.350, 7.470

Subject: FOIA Appeal: Cash Flow Projections\--Leases

August 27, 1992

Allen J. Danzig, Esq.

Corporate Counsel

The Sherwin Williams Company

101 Prospect Avenue, N.W.

Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1075

Dear Mr. Danzig:

This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA) appeal dated August 17, 1992. You appeal the July 21,

1992 partial denial by Anna-Marie Kilmade Gatons, Director,

Executive Secretariat. Ms. Gatons provided information

pertaining to the Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) grant

agreement for the City of Hamtramck Industrial Park in response

to your request, but withheld certain information under

Exemptions 4, and 5 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. Section 552(b)(4),(5).

(FOIA Control No.: FI-293833S).

I have determined to affirm the initial denial.

Exemption 4 protects from mandatory disclosure trade secrets

and commercial or financial information obtained from a person

which is privileged or confidential. The courts have interpreted

Exemption 4 as protecting confidential commercial or financial

information the disclosure of which is likely to: (1) impair the

Government\'s ability to obtain necessary information in the

future or (2) cause substantial harm to the competitive position

of the entity from whom the information was received. National

Parks and Conversation Association v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770

(D.C. Cir. 1974).

The information withheld under Exemption 4 includes

confidential financial and commercial information such as cost

estimates, cash flow projections, private contract, lease and

commercial agreements. Release of this information would permit

competitors to gain \"valuable insight into the operational

strengths and weaknesses of the supplier of the information.\"

National Parks and Conservation Association v. Kleppe, 547 F.2d

673, 684 (D.C. Cir. 1976).

Courts have recognized the competitive harm to a submitter

by release of the above described information. See, e.g., Gulf &

Western Industries, Inc. v. U.S., 615 F.2d 527 (D.C. Cir. 1979)

(protecting from disclosure financial information including

profit and loss data, expense rates, and break-even point

calculations); Timken Co. v. United States Customs Service,

531 F. Supp. 194 (D.D.C. 1981) (protecting financial and

commercial information on pricing and marketing); Braintree

Electric Light Dep\'t. v. Department of Energy, 494 F. Supp. 287

(D.D.C. 1980) (withholding financial information including

selling price, inventory balance, profit margins, purchasing

activity, and cost of goods sold).

Exemption 5 of the FOIA exempts from mandatory disclosure

\"inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would

not be available by law to a party . . . in litigation with the

agency.\" Exemption 5 incorporates a number of privileges known

to civil discovery including the deliberative process privilege,

the general purpose of which is to \"prevent injury to the quality

of agency decisions.\" NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S.

132, 151 (1975).

A document can qualify for exemption from disclosure under

the deliberative process privilege of Exemption 5 when it is

predecisional, i.e., \"antecedent to the adoption of an agency

policy,\" Jordan v. Department of Justice, 591 F.2d 753, 774 (D.C.

Cir. 1978) (en banc), and deliberative, i.e., \"a direct part of

the deliberative process in that it makes recommendations or

expresses opinions on legal or policy matters.\" Vaughn v. Rosen,

523 F.2d 1136, 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1975).

The materials withheld under Exemption 5 consist of internal

memoranda, drafts, reviewers\' handwritten notes, and other

internal review documents which pertain to the UDAG grant

agreement. These documents reveal the decisional and evaluative

process of the Department\'s internal review of the UDAG for the

City of Hamtramck Industrial Park. To allow disclosure of

viewpoints expressed by employees in the agency\'s evaluative

process would jeopardize the candid nature of the deliberative

process. See Washington Research Project Inc. v. Department of

Health, Education and Welfare, 504 F.2d 238, 250 (D.C. Cir.

1974).

Pursuant to HUD\'s regulations at 24 C.F.R. Section 15.21 I

have determined that the public interest in preserving free and

frank opinions, advice and recommendations within the Government,

and protecting confidential commercial and financial information,

militates against release of the withheld information.

Therefore, I have affirmed the initial denial under Exemptions 4

and 5.

Please be advised that you have the right to judicial review

of this determination under 5 U.S.C. Section 552(a)(4).

Very sincerely yours,

George L. Weidenfeller

Deputy General Counsel (Operations)

cc: Yvette Magruder