N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
AM E R IC AN SM ALL B USINESS LEAGUE, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. DEPAR TM ENT OF DEFENSE,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt,
and SIKOR SKY AIR C R

AFT C ORPOR ATION, Inte rve nor-De fe nda

nt. No. 15-15120

D.C . No. 3:14-c v-02166-W HA
M EM O R ANDUM *

AM E R IC AN SM ALL B USINESS LEAGUE, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. DEPAR TM ENT OF DEFENSE, No. 15-15121 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-02166-W HA



# FIL ED
JAN 06 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.De fe nda n t,
and SIKOR SKY AIR C R

AFT C ORPOR ATION, Inte rve nor-De fe nda

ntAppe lla nt. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m Alsup, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 14, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KOZINSKI, B Y B EE, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C i rc u it Judge s. The U.S. De pa

rtm e nt of De fe nse (the De pa rtm e nt) a nd Sikorsky

Airc ra ft C orporation (Sikorsky

) a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s orde r re quiring theproduc tion of Sikorsky ’ s e ntire C om

pre he nsive Sm a ll B usine ss Subc ontra c ting Pla n unde r the Fre e dom of Inform ation Ac t (FOIA). W e re vie w the ruling be low de novo, Animal Le gal De f. Fund v . U.S. Food &

Drug Admin. , 836 F.3d 987, 988 (9th C ir. 2016) (e n ba nc ) (pe r c uriam ), and c onc lude tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in holding tha t
none of the inform ation c urre ntly re da c te d from the Pla n is prote c te d

from disc losure unde r Exe m

ption 4 or Exe m

ption 6 of FOIA.

21. Exe m ption 4 a ssure s c om

pa nie s doing busine ss with the gove rnm e nt that the ir “ tra d e se c re t s a

nd c om m e rc ia l or fina

nc i a l inform ation [tha

t is] privile g e d
or c onfide ntia l” will not be re ve a le d to third pa

rtie s. 5 U.S.C . § 552(b)(4). C om m e rc ia l inform at ion is c onside re d “ c onfide ntia l” if “ the re is (1) a c tua l
c om pe tition in the re l e va

nt m arke t, a

nd (2) a like lihood of substa

n tia l c om pe titive injury if the inform ation we re re le a se d.” Lion Raisins v. U.S. De p ’t of Agric

. , 354 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th C ir. 2004) (c iting G .C . Mic ro C o r p. v . De f. Logistic

s Age nc y , 33 F.3d 1109, 1113 (9th C ir. 1994) ), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by Animal Le gal De f. Fund , 836 F.3d a

t 989 . The gove rnm e nt ne e d not show, howeve r, tha

t disc losure would c a

use “ a c tua l c om

pe titive ha

rm . ” Id. (quoting G.C

. Mic ro C orp. , 33 F.3d a t 1113). The De pa rtm e n t at le a st c re ate d a

ge nuine issue of fa c t a s to whe the r m ost of its re da c tions qua l ifie d for Exe m ption 4. The De pa

rtm e nt submitte d a

de c la ra tion from Sikorsky ’ s dire c tor of supply m ana ge m e nt (1) ide ntify ing the e ntitie s with whic h Sikorsky

c om pe te s for gove rnm e nt de fe nse c ontra c ts a n d (2) av e rring tha

t those e ntitie s c ould usethe re da c te d inform ation to gain a signific a nt c o m pe titive
a dva nta ge ove r Sikorsky . Nothing more is re q uire d to ga i n prote c t ion from disc losure unde r Exe m

ption 4, a nd the distric t c ourt e rre d in ruling othe rwise
. Se e G.C . Mic ro C orp. , 33 F.3d a

t 1111 (indic ating tha

t inform ation simila

r to the
3re da c te d inform ation he re would be subje c t to Exe m ption 4); Bow e n v . U.S. Food & Drug Admin. , 925 F.2d 1225, 1227–28 (9th C ir. 1991) (holding tha t a n a ffidavit with thefollowing de sc ription of sensitiveinform ation wa s suffic ie n tly spe c ific to trigge r Exe m

ption 4: “tra d e se c re t inform ation re g arding the m anufa c turing form ula s and proc e sse s , a s we ll a s qua lity c ontrol a nd inte rna l se c urity m e a sure s, of priva te busine ss e ntitie s” ). 2. The De pa

rtm e n t a lso c re ate d a

ge nuine issue of fa c t a s to whe the r the
re m a ining re da c tions, whic h e nc om pa ss Sikorsky e m

ploy e e s’ busine s s c onta c t inform at ion a

nd signa t ure s, we re prope r unde r Exe m ption 6. Se e 5 U.S.C
. § 552(b)(6). Although the e m ploy e e s’ priva c y

inte re sts in tha

t inform at ion a

re
sm a ll, the y

are not trivial be c a

use c ulprits c ould usethe inform ation for suc h purpose s a s ha

ra s sm e nt or forge ry . Se e Ele c . Frontie r Found. v . Offic e of the

Dir. of N at’l Inte llige nc e , 639 F.3d 876, 887–88 (9th C ir. 2010). W e c an ide n tify no
c ounte rva iling public

inte re s t suffic ie nt to justify disc losure in the se c i rc um sta nc e s , e spe c ia l ly sinc e the De pa

rtm e nt a lre a dy

disc lose d the nam e s of a ll e m ploy e e s
m e ntione d in the Pla

n. Se e id. RE V E RSE D.

4