Opinion ID: 2776675
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Planned Parenthood Documents

Text: The Department invokes Exemption 4 to prevent disclosing portions of the Manual, a letter describing the Manual, the Fees and Collections Policies, and a document titled Steps in Establishing our Fee Schedule. In order to properly invoke Exemption 4, the Department must demonstrate that the information -9- it seeks to protect is both commercial and confidential.4 See id. § 552(b)(4). The FOIA does not define the term commercial, so courts have given the term its ordinary meaning. See Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. Food & Drug Admin., 704 F.2d 1280, 1290 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 588 F.2d 863, 870 (2d Cir. 1978) (noting that commercial in the FOIA context surely means pertaining or relating to or dealing with commerce.). Commercial information is confidential if disclosure is likely (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. 9 to 5 Org. for Women Office Workers v. Board of Governors, 721 F.2d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 1983) (quoting Nat'l Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (footnote omitted)).5 4 The Department is not asserting that the submitted information is financial or privileged under Exemption 4. We thus focus only on whether the submitted information is commercial and confidential. 5 9 to 5 Org. expressly left open, as do we here, the possibility that information can be confidential if disclosure would harm interests other than the two interests identified in Nat'l Parks. 9 to 5 Org., 721 F.2d at 9 (noting that [i]f it can be demonstrated with particularity that a specific private or governmental interest will be harmed by the disclosure of commercial or financial information, the Government should not be precluded from invoking the protection of [E]xemption 4 merely because the asserted interest is not precisely one of those two identified in National Parks). -10- Right to Life makes two arguments for why Exemption 4 does not apply to the requested information: (1) Planned Parenthood, as a non-profit, cannot possess commercial information; and (2) even if Planned Parenthood can possess commercial information, disclosure of the requested information poses no likelihood of substantial harm to Planned Parenthood's competitive position. 1. Non-profits may possess commercial information. Right to Life argues that because Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization, it cannot be said to possess commercial information within the meaning of Exemption 4. We disagree. If accepted, this argument would amount to a per se exclusion of nonprofit entities from protection under Exemption 4. Neither the language of the statute nor common sense lean in Right to Life's favor here. The term commercial as used in the statute modifies information and not the entity supplying the information. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4). All sorts of non-profits--hospitals, colleges, and even the National Football League--engage in commerce as that term is ordinarily understood. How the tax code treats income from that commerce is a separate issue that has no bearing on our inquiry here. Apart from arguing that non-profits cannot possess commercial information, Right to Life does not claim that the -11- information in the documents is somehow not otherwise commercial.6 These documents--the Manual, the letter describing the Manual, the fees and collections policies, and the Steps in Establishing our Fee Schedule document--outline Planned Parenthood's operations and fees. That is to say, they outline the amounts Planned Parenthood charges customers for its services, and how it produces those services for sale. These documents thus surely pertain or relate to commerce as that term is ordinarily understood. See, e.g., Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp., 704 F.2d at 1290. 2. The subject documents are confidential. We turn now to the question of whether this undoubtedly commercial information is also 'confidential' under FOIA Exemption 4. See 9 to 5 Org., 721 F.2d at 8; 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4). Commercial information is confidential under Exemption 4 if disclosure is likely to either: (1) impair the Government's ability to obtain necessary information in the future; or (2) cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained. 9 to 5 Org., 721 F.2d at 8 (quoting Nat'l Parks, 498 F.2d at 770). The Department is not arguing the first prong. When evaluating the second prong, the 6 Right to Life does make a fall back argument that, even if a non-profit can possess commercial information, information tendered in order to get a federal grant (i.e., getting a check for rendering services) is somehow per se non-commercial. But no precedent supports such a claim. Nor can we see any reason why the nature of the information somehow changes when supplied to get such a grant. -12- court need not conduct a sophisticated economic analysis of the likely effects of disclosure. Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp., 704 F.2d at 1291. But [c]onclusory or generalized allegations will not suffice. Id. Parties opposing disclosure need not demonstrate actual competitive harm; instead, they need only show actual competition and a likelihood of substantial competitive injury in order to bring [that] commercial information within the realm of confidentiality. Id.; accord Sharkey v. Food & Drug Admin., 250 F. App'x 284, 288 (11th Cir. 2007); Lion Raisins Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 354 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2004); Utah v. United States Dep't of Interior, 256 F.3d 967, 970 (10th Cir. 2001); Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Interior, No. 13 Civ. 942(PAE), 2014 WL 3871159, at  (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2014). For the purposes of awarding the grant in 2011, both New Hampshire and the Department determined that Planned Parenthood was the only Title X provider in the region. Right to Life contends that the Department cannot change positions and now argue against disclosure on the ground that Planned Parenthood would likely face substantial competitive harm. Right to Life's view of actual competition is myopic, focusing only on the ad-hoc, non-competitive grant process that took place in 2011. The district court aptly noted that Planned Parenthood faces plenty of competition from other entities for -13- patients. Many of Planned Parenthood's services are also provided by hospitals and health clinics. Further, the Title X grant process in New Hampshire will be open to other bids in the future. Even in 2011, a potential competitor--the Manchester Community Health Center--requested information from the Department about applying for the same grant. Although Planned Parenthood admittedly did not compete for the federal grant in 2011, it certainly does face actual competitors--community health clinics-- in a number of different arenas, and in future Title X bids. This satisfies the actual competition requirement. See, e.g., Utah, 256 F.3d at 970–71. Having established that the documents contain commercial information, and that Planned Parenthood faces actual competition in a variety of contexts, we turn to the specific documents Right to Life wants disclosed, and whether disclosure of those documents would likely cause substantial competitive harm to Planned Parenthood.7 The Manual, and thus the letter that describes it, provides a model for operating a family planning clinic and for 7 We gauge the risk of substantial harm to Planned Parenthood's competitive position as of the time of the district court decision. See, e.g., N.Y. Times Co. v. United States Dep't of Justice, 756 F.3d 100, 110 n.8 (2nd Cir. 2014). Requiring an agency to update its FOIA responses based on post-response occurrences could create an endless cycle of judicially mandated reprocessing. Bonner v. United States Dep't of States, 921 F.2d 1148, 1152 (D.C. Cir. 1991). -14- providing . . . services consistent with [Planned Parenthood's] unique model of care. The National Medical Committee of Planned Parenthood Federation of America developed the Manual, in collaboration with local affiliate chapters, like the Northern New England branch. Planned Parenthood treated these documents as confidential information not generally available to the public. A potential future competitor could take advantage of the institutional knowledge contained in the Manual, and the letter describing the Manual, to compete with Planned Parenthood for patients, grants, or other funding. We therefore agree with the district court that the Department met its burden for invoking Exemption 4 for the Manual and Medical Standards, and the letter containing descriptions of the same--Vaughn index categories 38 and 39. The Fees and Collections Policies and the Steps in Establishing our Fee Schedule documents contain information that identifies cost differentials between services, identifies all services provided[,] and sets forth the fee scale. Planned Parenthood treated these documents as confidential information not generally available to the public. Pricing information like that contained in these documents is undoubtedly valuable information for competitors. Nor is there any suggestion that competitors have access to this information (other than perhaps anecdotally and incompletely). We thus agree with the district court that the -15- Department met its burden for establishing a likelihood of substantial competitive harm from the disclosure of Planned Parenthood's Steps in Establishing our Fee Schedule document and its Fees and Collections Policies--Vaughn index categories 35 and 37.8