Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04234/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04234-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Right to Privacy Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERSH & HERSH,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-4234 PJH

v. ORDER REQUIRING

FURTHER BRIEFING

US DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment came on for hearing before this court on

January 23, 2008. As made clear in both the parties’ papers and their arguments at the

hearing, a key issue to be resolved in deciding defendants’ motion is the applicability of the

FOIA exemption set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4). This exemption prevents the disclosure

of commercial and financial information obtained from a person or by the government that

is privileged or confidential. See, e.g., GC Micro Corp. v. Defense Logistics Agency, 33

F.3d 1109, 1112 (9th Cir. 1994). As the parties acknowledge, a commercial or financial

matter is deemed “confidential,” in turn, if disclosure of the information is likely to have

either of the following effects: (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. See id.; see also National Parks and

Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C.Cir.1974).

While defendants argue for application of exemption b(4) under either of the two

prongs set forth under the test for confidentiality, however, defendants have failed to submit

any competent evidence addressing the former – i.e., establishing that disclosure of the

information withheld in this case would impair the Government’s ability to obtain necessary

Case 4:06-cv-04234-PJH Document 117 Filed 01/28/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

information in future. While defendants have argued as much in their papers, no evidence

on this point has actually been submitted for consideration (the government declarations

that have been submitted address only the latter). 

For that reason, and because the court desires to have a complete record before it

in deciding the motion for summary judgment, the court accordingly instructs defendants to

submit further competent evidence on this point in support of defendants’ claim of

confidentiality for the withheld documents – from the relevant HHS or other government

authority – if defendants wish to have the court evaluate the applicability of the b(4)

exemption on the above ground. Defendants shall submit any further evidence addressing

this issue no later than February 11, 2008. The evidence may be accompanied by a brief

not in excess of 5 pages. Plaintiff may respond by submitting an opposing brief not

exceeding 5 pages, no later than February 18, 2008. Thereafter, the matter will be taken

under submission, and a further order will be issued by the court making a final

determination on the merits of the motion for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-04234-PJH Document 117 Filed 01/28/08 Page 2 of 2