Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-06-05231/USCOURTS-caDC-06-05231-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Multi AG Media LLC
Appellant
United States Department of Agriculture
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 24, 2007 Decided February 15, 2008 

No. 06-5231 

MULTI AG MEDIA LLC, 

APPELLANT

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(No. 05cv01908) 

James D. Miller argued the cause for appellant. With him 

on the briefs was Lance V. Oliver. 

Alan Burch, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for 

appellee. On the briefs were Jeffrey A. Taylor, U.S. Attorney, 

and R. Craig Lawrence and Megan L. Rose, Assistant U.S. 

Attorneys. 

Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and TATEL and 

GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges. 

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH. 

USCA Case #06-5231 Document #1099256 Filed: 02/15/2008 Page 1 of 19
2 

Dissenting opinion filed by Chief Judge SENTELLE. 

GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge: Under the Freedom of 

Information Act (“FOIA”), “an agency must disclose all 

records requested by ‘any person,’ 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3), 

unless the information sought falls within a specific statutory 

exemption. 5 U.S.C. § 552(d).” Nat’l Ass’n of Retired Fed. 

Employees v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873, 874 (D.C. Cir. 1989). 

Multi Ag Media LLC (“Multi Ag”), a commercial vendor of 

agricultural data, has made FOIA requests for various records 

of farm data maintained by the United States Department of 

Agriculture (“USDA”). Invoking FOIA Exemption 6, which 

protects individual privacy interests in government records, 

USDA has withheld some of the requested information. 

Because there is a significant public interest in disclosure that 

outweighs the personal privacy interest USDA seeks to 

protect, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment in favor of USDA. 

I. 

Within USDA, the Farm Service Agency (“FSA”) is the 

principal agency charged with promoting a stable and 

abundant American food supply. FSA meets this 

responsibility, in part, by offering subsidies and other 

financial assistance to farms. To qualify for FSA’s benefits, 

farmers must submit information about their operations to a 

local FSA office. The information includes data on each 

farm’s agricultural practices, acreage, soil, crops, livestock, 

and geographical location. 

On July 13, 2005, Multi Ag submitted a FOIA request to 

USDA seeking release of thirteen databases maintained by 

FSA relevant to its agricultural subsidy and benefit programs. 

FSA processed the request and released some information, but 

USCA Case #06-5231 Document #1099256 Filed: 02/15/2008 Page 2 of 19
3 

withheld other information on the ground that it contained 

private information about individual farmers protected by 

FOIA Exemption 6. Pressing its claim for the withheld 

information, Multi Ag exhausted its administrative appeals 

within USDA without success, then filed suit in the district 

court. The district court sided with Multi Ag in ordering the 

disclosure of requested information in two of the files, but 

also partly granted USDA’s motion for summary judgment 

and allowed the agency to withhold information in two other 

files, the Compliance File and the Geographic Information 

System (“GIS”) database. Multi AG Media LLC v. USDA, No. 

05-01908, 2006 WL 2320941, at *5–7 (D.D.C. 2006). Multi 

Ag appeals that decision.1

 The Compliance File is a massive 

database with information on crops and field acreage for 

hundreds of thousands of individual farms across the country. 

It contains crop data that agricultural producers report to FSA 

to establish their eligibility for the government’s subsidy and 

benefit programs. In response to Multi Ag’s FOIA request, 

USDA withheld information on irrigation practices, farm 

acreage, and the number and width of rows of tobacco and 

cotton. The district court concluded that this information was 

protected by FOIA Exemption 6 because its disclosure 

“would reveal financial information associated with an 

individual . . . without shedding any light on the government’s 

activities.” Id. at *5.

The GIS database provides farm data on a digitized aerial 

photograph. USDA uses GIS as part of a system that 

combines Global Positioning System technology and aerial 

photographs to calculate acreage, identify crop types, and 

 

1

 USDA filed a cross-appeal challenging the district court’s order 

that it release the withheld information from the Livestock 

Assistance and Livestock Compensation program files, but has 

since abandoned that appeal. 

USCA Case #06-5231 Document #1099256 Filed: 02/15/2008 Page 3 of 19
4 

create maps of farmland. The GIS database helps FSA verify 

farm features and thereby monitor compliance with 

regulations governing farm benefits. It also provides more 

specific information regarding the location of farms than do 

FSA’s other files, which provide only general state and 

county location information. Declaration of Robin Wieland, 

¶ 61 (February 15, 2006) (“Wieland Declaration”) (stating 

that the GIS database provides a “specific geographic 

reference”). USDA released much of the GIS database to 

Multi Ag, but withheld information on farm, tract, and 

boundary identification, calculated acreage, and 

characteristics of the land such as whether it is erodible, 

barren, or has water or perennial snow cover. The district 

court concluded that because this information reveals details 

of land ownership, its disclosure would compromise a 

substantial privacy interest, but that disclosure would serve no 

public interest because the information would not “reveal 

anything about what the government is up to.” Multi AG 

Media LLC, 2006 WL 2320941, at *6–7. 

USDA argues on appeal that disclosure of the 

Compliance File and the GIS database would compromise 

farmers’ privacy interests and that these files are properly 

withheld under FOIA Exemption 6. Multi Ag contends that 

disclosure of the files would not reveal anything personal 

about individual farmers and would advance a significant 

public interest by shedding light on USDA’s administration of 

its subsidy and benefit programs. 

II. 

We review the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment de novo. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F.3d 141, 

145 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “In the FOIA context this requires that 

we ascertain whether the agency has sustained its burden of 

USCA Case #06-5231 Document #1099256 Filed: 02/15/2008 Page 4 of 19
5 

demonstrating the documents requested are . . . exempt from 

disclosure under the FOIA.” Gallant v. NLRB, 26 F.3d 168, 

171 (D.C. Cir. 1994); see also 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) 

(stating that “the burden is on the agency to sustain its 

action”). An agency may sustain its burden by means of 

affidavits, but only “if they contain reasonable specificity of 

detail rather than merely conclusory statements, and if they 

are not called into question by contradictory evidence in the 

record or by evidence of agency bad faith.” Gallant, 26 F.3d 

at 171 (quoting Halperin v. CIA, 629 F.2d 144, 148 (D.C. Cir. 

1980)). 

FOIA’s basic purpose reflects “ ‘a general philosophy of 

full agency disclosure unless information is exempted under 

clearly delineated statutory language.’ ” Dep’t of Air Force v. 

Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 360–61 (1976) (quoting S. Rep. 89-813, 

at 3 (1965)). “At all times, courts must bear in mind that 

FOIA mandates a ‘strong presumption in favor of 

disclosure.’ ” Nat’l Ass’n of Homebuilders v. Norton, 309 

F.3d 26, 32 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (quoting U.S. Dep’t of State v. 

Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 173 (1991)). FOIA’s exemptions “do not 

obscure the basic policy that disclosure, not secrecy, is the 

dominant objective of the Act.” Rose, 425 U.S. at 361. For 

that reason, they “must be narrowly construed.” Id. And there 

is nothing about invoking Exemption 6 that lightens the 

agency’s burden. In fact, “under Exemption 6, the 

presumption in favor of disclosure is as strong as can be 

found anywhere in the Act.” Norton, 309 F.3d at 32 (citing 

Wash. Post Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 690 

F.2d 252, 261 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). 

III. 

FOIA Exemption 6 allows an agency to withhold 

“personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of 

USCA Case #06-5231 Document #1099256 Filed: 02/15/2008 Page 5 of 19
6 

which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 

personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). We must pursue two 

lines of inquiry to determine whether USDA has sustained its 

burden to show that the information Multi Ag seeks is 

properly withheld under this exemption. First, we must 

determine whether the Compliance File and the GIS database 

are personnel, medical, or “similar” files covered by 

Exemption 6. If so, we must then determine whether their 

disclosure “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion 

of personal privacy.” Id. This second inquiry requires us to 

balance the privacy interest that would be compromised by 

disclosure against any public interest in the requested 

information. U.S. Dep’t of Def. v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487, 497 

(1994); Nat’l Ass’n of Retired Fed. Employees v. Horner, 879 

F.2d 873, 874 (D.C. Cir. 1989). 

“Similar Files” 

The district court concluded that the Compliance File and 

the GIS database are “similar files” within Exemption 6, and 

even though the parties on appeal do not contest this point, we 

think it merits some explanation why business records such as 

these are covered by Exemption 6. In National Parks and 

Conservation Ass’n v. Kleppe, we reversed the district court’s 

ruling that FOIA Exemption 4, which protects “trade secrets 

and commercial or financial information obtained from a 

person [that is] privileged or confidential,” 5 U.S.C. 

§ 552(b)(4), could be used to lawfully withhold business 

records on grounds of individual privacy. 547 F.2d 673, 686 

(D.C. Cir. 1976). We explained that personal privacy interests 

are not “a relevant concern under the fourth exemption,” but 

are under Exemption 6. Id. at 685–86. Although Exemption 6 

“has not been extended to protect the privacy interests of 

businesses or corporations,” id. at 685 n.44, we pointed out 

that “personal or ‘personalized’ financial information” 

USCA Case #06-5231 Document #1099256 Filed: 02/15/2008 Page 6 of 19
7 

contained in the records of “individually-owned businesses” 

that “necessarily reveal[s] at least a portion of the owner’s 

personal finances,” may well qualify for protection under 

Exemption 6. Id. at 685. 

What we said in Kleppe about Exemption 6 was correct 

and we apply it here. In United States Department of State v. 

Washington Post Co., the Supreme Court explained that 

“Congress’ primary purpose in enacting Exemption 6 was to 

protect individuals from the injury and embarrassment that 

can result from the unnecessary disclosure of personal

information.” 456 U.S. 595, 599 (1982) (emphases added). 

The Court held that Exemption 6 was not limited “to a narrow 

class of files containing only a discrete kind of personal 

information,” but was “intended to cover detailed 

Government records on an individual which can be identified 

as applying to that individual.” Id. at 602. As we explained in 

Horner, “[t]he Supreme Court has made clear that Exemption 

6 is designed to protect personal information in public 

records.” 879 F.2d at 875. Were we to deem an individual’s 

financial information unprotected by Exemption 6 simply 

because it is found in a business record, a cardinal purpose of 

Exemption 6 would not be served. It is clear that businesses 

themselves do not have protected privacy interests under 

Exemption 6, but where their records reveal financial 

information easily traceable to an individual, disclosing those 

records jeopardizes a personal privacy interest that Exemption 

6 protects. We thus hold that Exemption 6 applies to financial 

information in business records when the business is 

individually owned or closely held, and “the records would 

necessarily reveal at least a portion of the owner’s personal 

finances.” Kleppe, 547 F.2d at 685. 

In our case, to determine whether the Compliance File 

and the GIS database are “similar files” covered by 

USCA Case #06-5231 Document #1099256 Filed: 02/15/2008 Page 7 of 19
8 

Exemption 6, we must consider whether the farms are 

individually owned or closely held, and whether disclosure of 

the files would reveal information about individual farmers’ 

personal finances. In its affidavits, USDA asserts that 

approximately ninety-eight percent of the farms represented 

in the files are “family owned,” meaning they are closely-held 

businesses or “small family farms” in which “the financial 

makeup of the businesses mirrors the financial situation of the 

individual family members.” Wieland Declaration, ¶¶ 16, 28. 

USDA explains that the requested files contain various data 

fields such as state code, county code, farm number, and tract 

number, which are used together to trace the files to “a 

specific agricultural producer or landowner, who are [sic] 

almost exclusively individual producers and closely held 

businesses.” Id. ¶¶ 50, 60. In the affidavit of its president, 

Multi Ag responds that the data in the Compliance File and 

the GIS database are not about individuals, but are “all 

generic or demographic.” Affidavit of John L. Montandon, 

¶ 18 (Mar. 3, 2006) (Montandon Affidavit). Multi Ag further 

argues that many farms have multiple owners and operators 

and that this “wide variety of ownership and operating 

vehicles . . . completely negates any inference about the 

personal finances of any individual.” Id. ¶ 19, 21. 

Although USDA does not offer evidence of specific 

farms owned by named individuals whose privacy interests in 

their personal financial information would be compromised 

by disclosure, it nonetheless establishes that a significant 

portion of the farms described in the Compliance File and in 

the GIS database are individually owned or closely held. 

Information about the crops on these farms “would 

necessarily reveal at least a portion of the owner’s personal 

finances.” Kleppe, 547 F.2d at 685. Multi Ag’s affidavits have 

not controverted USDA’s affidavits on this point. See Gallant, 

26 F.3d at 171. Multi Ag has shown that because farm 

USCA Case #06-5231 Document #1099256 Filed: 02/15/2008 Page 8 of 19
9 

ownership is complex, the crop information that is revealed 

may be less invasive of individual privacy than USDA claims, 

but Multi Ag has not shown that all farms are owned in such a 

manner that disclosing their assets will in no instances allow 

the public to trace the information to individual farmers. Multi 

Ag in fact concedes “that many farms are owned by a single 

family.” Id. ¶ 24. It counters that these family owned farms 

are “often large, substantial businesses,” Id., but disclosure of 

an individual’s financial information is no less protected 

under Exemption 6 simply because his assets are significant. 

The affidavits do not establish the number of farms for which 

the information would be easily traceable to individuals, but 

they confirm that this is the case for at least a significant 

portion of them, and this showing is sufficient for us to 

conclude that the files are covered by Exemption 6. 

Balancing Privacy and Public Interests

 The balancing analysis for FOIA Exemption 6 requires 

that we first determine whether disclosure of the files “would 

compromise a substantial, as opposed to de minimis, privacy 

interest,” because “[i]f no significant privacy interest is 

implicated . . . FOIA demands disclosure.” Nat’l Ass’n of 

Retired Fed. Employees v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873, 874 (D.C. 

Cir. 1989). Our use of the word substantial in this context 

means less than it might seem. A substantial privacy interest 

is anything greater than a de minimis privacy interest. Id.

Finding a substantial privacy interest does not conclude the 

inquiry; it only moves it along to the point where we can 

“address the question whether the public interest in disclosure 

outweighs the individual privacy concerns.” Nat’l Ass’n of 

Homebuilders v. Norton, 309 F.3d 26, 35 (D.C. Cir. 2002). In 

other words, a privacy interest may be substantial—more than 

de minimis—and yet be insufficient to overcome the public 

interest in disclosure. 

USCA Case #06-5231 Document #1099256 Filed: 02/15/2008 Page 9 of 19
10 

The parties dispute whether disclosure of the Compliance 

File and the GIS database would reveal private personal 

financial information. USDA argues that disclosing the 

withheld information would reveal assets that, for family 

owned farms, would invade their owners’ privacy interests. 

For example, as USDA explains, the field and crop 

information in the Compliance File “bear[] directly on the 

value of the producer’s land and the wealth of the producer in 

general.” Wieland Declaration ¶ 52a. Disclosure of a farm’s 

reported acreage and data on the number and width of rows of 

tobacco “may provide a snapshot” of a farm’s financial 

circumstances and “shed[] light on the financial condition of 

the farmer.” Id. ¶ 52b–h. Disclosure of the GIS database only 

heightens these privacy concerns because its information is 

set forth in photographs or maps. 

By contrast, Multi Ag contends that release of the 

Compliance File and the GIS database would not “shed light 

on the financial condition of any particular farm, because 

there are too many very common economic variables,” such 

as “market price variability, weather variability, technological 

changes, and disease impacts” that affect farm and crop 

values. Montandon Affidavit, ¶ 19; Affidavit of William E. 

Nganje, ¶ 3 (Mar. 3, 2006) (“Nganje Affidavit”). Multi Ag 

argues that “it is not accurate to equate information about 

crops and acreage directly with financial information of 

farms.” Nganje Affidavit, ¶ 3. It also argues, as noted above, 

that the complexity of farm ownership negates any inference 

that might be drawn from the crop information about the 

finances of individual farmers. 

Although Multi Ag has shown that economic variables 

weaken the correlation between farm assets and a farmer’s 

financial situation, we conclude that the privacy interest that 

USCA Case #06-5231 Document #1099256 Filed: 02/15/2008 Page 10 of 19
11 

would be compromised by disclosure of the files is greater 

than de minimis. See Horner, 879 F.2d at 874; Norton, 309 

F.3d. at 35–37 (finding that the government had “established 

only the speculative potential of a privacy invasion without 

any degree of likelihood” but nonetheless “[v]iewing the 

asserted privacy interests as involving more than minimal 

invasions of privacy”). Telling the public how many crops are 

on how much land or letting the public look at photographs of 

farmland with accompanying data will in some cases allow 

for an inference to be drawn about the financial situation of an 

individual farmer. Because USDA has not made a showing of 

how often this may be the case, we are not persuaded that the 

privacy interest that may exist is particularly strong. 

Nonetheless, our standard at this stage is not very demanding, 

so we are willing to engage in the balancing inquiry by 

concluding that disclosure of the information would constitute 

a “more than minimal invasion[] of personal privacy.” 

Norton, 309 F.3d at 35. 

Having found a greater than de minimis privacy interest 

in the requested information, “we must weigh that privacy 

interest in non-disclosure against the public interest in the 

release of the records in order to determine whether, on 

balance, disclosure would work a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.” Horner, 879 F.2d at 874. 

Because the “basic purpose of [FOIA] . . . focuses on the 

citizens’ right to be informed about ‘what their government is 

up to,’ ” information that “sheds light on an agency’s 

performance of its statutory duties” is in the public interest.2

 

2

 Although Multi Ag may not want the information to check up on 

the government itself, the use for which the requestor seeks the 

information is not relevant for purposes of determining the public 

interest under FOIA Exemption 6. Horner, 879 F.2d at 875 (“The 

Act’s sole concern is with what must be made public or not made 

public.”) (quoting U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for 

USCA Case #06-5231 Document #1099256 Filed: 02/15/2008 Page 11 of 19
12 

U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of 

Press, 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989); see also U.S. Dep’t of Def. 

v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487, 495 (1994) (stating that the relevant 

public interest under FOIA is “the extent to which disclosure 

[of requested files] would serve the ‘core purpose of the 

FOIA,’ which is ‘contribut[ing] significantly to public 

understanding of the operations or activities of the 

government’ ”) (alterations in original) (quoting Reporters 

Comm., 489 U.S. at 775). 

USDA argues that because the Compliance File does not 

include payment information linking the farm data to specific 

subsidies, its disclosure would involve no public interest. The 

agency explains that some of the crops listed in the 

Compliance File are not tied to a subsidy program at all, but 

are merely reported because the farmer has an ownership 

interest in them and is required to submit information on all 

such crops. In response, Multi Ag argues that eligibility for 

farm benefits requires submission of all the data that is in the 

Compliance File. Multi Ag points out that USDA 

acknowledges that it collects only that information “necessary 

for acceptance into one or more of FSA’s programs.” Wieland 

Declaration, ¶ 28. If the information contained in the 

Compliance File is required of all farmers receiving benefits 

through FSA’s programs, so the argument goes, then the 

public has an interest in knowing whether farmers who 

receive subsidies have complied by submitting the necessary 

information. 

The district court agreed with USDA and found a 

“drastically decreas[ed]” public interest in disclosure of the 

Compliance File because it does not include payment 

 

Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 772 (1989) (internal quotation 

marks omitted)). 

USCA Case #06-5231 Document #1099256 Filed: 02/15/2008 Page 12 of 19
13 

information connecting its data to specific subsidies. Multi 

AG Media LLC, 2006 WL 2320941, at *5. The district court’s 

focus is too narrow and misses the significant public interest 

we see in disclosure. Although the Compliance File may not 

directly say anything about a particular subsidy program, it 

says everything about whether a particular farm is eligible to 

participate in the benefit programs in the first place and thus 

“sheds light on the agency’s performance of its statutory 

duties.” Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 773. FSA uses this 

information in making subsidy and benefit determinations, 

and the public has a significant interest in being able to look 

at the information the agency had before it when making these 

determinations so that the public can monitor whether the 

agency is correctly doing its job. For example, the 

Compliance File includes both acreage amounts reported by 

the farm operators and acreage amounts determined by FSA 

after conducting its own spot checks. See id. ¶ 52g–h. Without 

the data from the Compliance File, the public would have 

great difficulty verifying that FSA is properly conducting its 

spot checks and properly using the data obtained from the 

spot checks. 

We are likewise persuaded that there is a significant 

public interest in disclosure of the GIS database. USDA 

argues that although the information it withheld from the 

database may say much about the farm, it says nothing about 

how the agency administers its programs. But USDA does not 

dispute that it uses the GIS database to monitor program 

compliance. With the information from the database, the 

public can more easily determine whether USDA is catching 

cheaters and lawfully administering its subsidy and benefit 

programs. As is the case with disclosure of the Compliance 

File, the information in the GIS database will enable the 

public to more easily monitor whether the agency is carrying 

out its statutory duty. See Norton, 309 F.3d at 35–37 (finding 

USCA Case #06-5231 Document #1099256 Filed: 02/15/2008 Page 13 of 19
14 

a strong public interest in disclosure of data the Secretary of 

the Interior used to make critical habitat designations so that 

the public could know if the agency was lawfully 

administering its program). 

 Having found both a greater than de minimis privacy 

interest and a significant public interest in disclosure of the 

Compliance File and the GIS database, we must now balance 

the two to determine whether the agency has met its burden to 

show that “the substantial interest in personal privacy is not 

outweighed by the public interest in disclosure.” Sims v. CIA, 

642 F.2d 562, 573 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “For unless the invasion 

of privacy is ‘clearly unwarranted,’ the public interest in 

disclosure must prevail,” and the agency may not withhold the 

files under Exemption 6. U.S. Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 

164, 177 (1991). 

We are mindful that Congress enacted FOIA “to pierce 

the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to 

the light of public scrutiny.” Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose, 425 

U.S. 352, 361 (1976). FOIA is intended “to ensure an 

informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic 

society, 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 (1978). As the 

Supreme Court has explained, the purpose and plain language 

of the Act mandate a “strong presumption in favor of 

disclosure.” Ray, 502 U.S. at 173. 

That presumption is of special force here because the 

public has a particular and significant interest in the 

information Multi Ag seeks. USDA uses this information in 

the administration of its subsidy and benefit programs, and 

there is a special need for public scrutiny of agency action 

that distributes extensive amounts of public funds in the form 

USCA Case #06-5231 Document #1099256 Filed: 02/15/2008 Page 14 of 19
15 

of subsidies and other financial benefits. Brock v. Pierce 

County, 476 U.S. 253, 262 (1986) (“[T]he protection of the 

public fisc is a matter that is of interest to every citizen.”); 

News-Press v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 489 F.3d 1173, 

1192 (11th Cir. 2007) (“easily” concluding that there is a 

substantial public interest under FOIA Exemption 6 in 

“learning whether FEMA is a good steward of (sometimes 

several billions of) taxpayer dollars in the wake of natural and 

other disasters”); United States v. Suarez, 880 F.2d 626, 630 

(2d Cir. 1989) (“[T]here is an obvious legitimate public 

interest in how taxpayers’ money is being spent, particularly 

when the amount is large.”). Congress has recognized the 

importance of ensuring the responsible use of these funds. For 

example, it created the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) 

within USDA to “prevent and detect fraud and abuse” in the 

“programs and operations” of the department. 5 U.S.C. App. 

3 § 2; see also 7 C.F.R. § 2610.1(b) (“The mission of OIG 

is . . . to conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and 

investigations of USDA programs and operations to 

determine efficiency and effectiveness; to prevent and detect 

fraud and abuse in such programs and operations; and to keep 

the Secretary and the Congress informed of problems and 

deficiencies relative to the programs and operations.”). 

In sum, given USDA’s rather tepid showing that release 

of the files would allow the public to draw inferences about 

some farmers’ financial circumstances, the interest in data 

that would allow the public to more easily monitor USDA’s 

administration of its subsidy and benefit programs, and 

FOIA’s presumption in favor of disclosure, we conclude that 

the public interest in disclosure of the Compliance file and 

GIS database outweighs the personal privacy interest. 

Accordingly, release of these files would not “constitute a 

clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” 5 U.S.C. 

USCA Case #06-5231 Document #1099256 Filed: 02/15/2008 Page 15 of 19
16 

§ 552(b)(6), and USDA’s reliance on Exemption 6 in 

withholding information from the files was improper. 

IV.

 We reverse the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment with respect to the Compliance File and the GIS 

database and remand the case to the district court for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

So ordered. 

USCA Case #06-5231 Document #1099256 Filed: 02/15/2008 Page 16 of 19
SENTELLE, Chief Judge, dissenting: Although I am largely

in agreement with the majority’s analysis, that analysis leads me

to a different conclusion, and I therefore respectfully dissent.

 

The majority is clearly correct that FOIA Exemption 6, 5

U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), permits the withholding of the Compliance

File and Geographic Information System (“GIS”) database if

such disclosure “would constitute a clearly unwarranted

invasion of personal privacy.” Id.; Maj. Op. at 5. The majority

is further correct in acknowledging that “‘Congress’ primary

purpose in enacting Exemption 6 was to protect individuals from

the injury and embarrassment that can result from the

unnecessary disclosure of personal information.’” Maj. Op. at

6 (quoting U.S. Dep’t of State v. Wash. Post Co., 456 U.S. 595,

599 (1982) (emphasis the majority’s)). I remain in concurrence

with the majority as it acknowledges, obedient to Washington

Post, that the protection of Exemption 6 extends to cover

“‘detailed Government records on an individual which can be

identified as applying to that individual.’” Maj. Op. at 7

(quoting Wash. Post, 456 U.S. at 602), and when it recognizes

that “[w]ere we to deem an individual’s financial interest

unprotected by Exemption 6 simply because it is found in a

business record, a cardinal purpose of Exemption 6 would not be

served.” Maj. Op. at 7 (citing Nat’l Ass’n of Retired Fed.

Employees v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873, 875 (D.C. Cir. 1989)). As

the majority further recognizes, “approximately ninety-eight

percent of the farms represented in the files are ‘familyowned,’” so that “the financial makeup of the businesses mirrors

the financial situation of the individual family members.” Maj.

Op. at 7 (internal quotation marks omitted). The majority then

reaches the inescapable conclusion that at least as to a

significant portion of the farms described in the database, the

crop information would be easily traceable to individuals.

USCA Case #06-5231 Document #1099256 Filed: 02/15/2008 Page 17 of 19
2

I join the majority’s further reasoning when it concludes

that the disclosure of data bearing directly on the value of the

producer’s land and therefore, upon the wealth and income of

the producer compromises the privacy interest of the farmer and

“that the privacy interest that would be compromised by

disclosure of the files is greater than de minimis.” Maj. Op. at

10. It is only when the majority weighs the privacy interest in

nondisclosure against the public interest in the disclosure of the

records that I find myself in disagreement. Instead, I agree with

the district court that the public interest involved in the

disclosure of these files sits lightly upon the scales of balance.

 

As the district court noted, and the majority acknowledges,

there is a “‘drastically decreas[ed]’ public interest in disclosure

of the Compliance File because it does not include payment

information connecting its data to specific subsidies.” Maj. Op.

at 12 (quoting Multi AG Media LLC, 2006 WL 2320941, at *5).

As the district court further noted, given the volume of other

information already disclosed from other databases, and the

salient fact that the files in dispute contain no information about

USDA subsidies, “[d]isclosing the withheld information in the

Compliance file would merely reveal information about private

citizens, without shedding any light on the government’s

activities.” 2006 WL 2320941, at *5. Like the district court,

and not unlike the majority, I find Multi Ag’s argument that

there is no invasion (or no more than a minimal invasion) of the

privacy interests of the farmers most unconvincing. That

argument depends upon the proposition that there is much more

financial information in the universe of facts about the

individual farmers that will not be disclosed than there is

information being disclosed. To me this makes no more sense

than saying it would be acceptable for the government to

disclose the contents of tax returns because they do not provide

information concerning the holdings or expectations of the

taxpayer and therefore would constitute no invasion of privacy.

USCA Case #06-5231 Document #1099256 Filed: 02/15/2008 Page 18 of 19
3

That proposition makes so little sense that there are specific

regulations and statutes protecting the privacy of the taxpayer.

See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 7213 (making it a felony for federal or

state employees willfully to disclose tax return information); 18

U.S.C. § 1905 (imposing criminal penalties on federal

employees disclosing, inter alia, the “amount or source of any

income, profits, losses, or expenditures of any person, firm,

partnership, corporation, or association”). It seems to be well

accepted that it would be unfair for the government to compel

taxpayers to disclose information and then allow that

information to be spread at large without regard to the privacy

of the taxpayer. Today’s ruling puts the farmers in the same

circumstances we would not impose upon other citizens and

taxpayers. I therefore would affirm the conclusion and

judgment of the district court that the privacy interest protected

by Exemption 6 would outweigh the light public interest in

disclosure.

Again, although I join in most of the reasoning of the

majority, I dissent from its conclusion.

USCA Case #06-5231 Document #1099256 Filed: 02/15/2008 Page 19 of 19