Opinion ID: 409411
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicability of Exemption 4 to Personal Financial Information

Text: 47 We do not see, nor has the government explained, how the list of non-federal employment on Form 474 can be commercial or financial information. As for the list of financial interests, it was certainly obtained from a person, but the parties dispute whether it is financial information within the meaning of Exemption 4. The district court held that it was not because the Exemption does not cover personal financial information as distinguished from economic data relating to corporations or other business entities. 48 We disagree. 48 The statutory language is not, on its face, restricted to commercial as opposed to personal financial information. The reference to trade secrets and commercial information suggests that business information was Congress's primary concern. On the other hand, to limit financial information to commercial financial information would all but read and financial out of the statute. On balance, we believe that the plain language of Exemption 4 covers all financial information, despite the apparent commercial focus of the Exemption. 49 The legislative history also suggests that Exemption 4 covers personal financial information. The House and Senate reports are silent on the meaning of commercial or financial; apparently because they refer to an earlier version of the statute that covered all privileged or confidential information. See Davis, The Information Act: A Preliminary Analysis, 34 U.Chi.L.Rev. 761, 789-90 (1967); Board of Trade, 627 F.2d at 403 nn.76-77. But the Senate, at least, expressly contemplated that personal information would be covered by Exemption 4. The Senate Judiciary Committee altered an earlier draft covering information obtained from the public to read obtained from any person, and explained the change as follows: 50 It was pointed out in statements to the committee that agencies may obtain information of a highly personal and individual nature. To better convey this idea the substitute language is provided. 51 S.Rep. at 2 (emphasis added). 52 Our cases are in accord. In Rural Housing Alliance v. United States Department of Agriculture, 498 F.2d 73, 78 (D.C.Cir.1974), we held: 53 While it is true that exemption 4 is primarily a trade secrets exemption, it also protects individuals from disclosure of financial information which is privileged or confidential. 54 Subsequent Exemption 4 cases have not undercut this holding. The district court relied on National Parks II, 547 F.2d at 685, where we questioned in dictum whether personal privacy rights (are) a relevant concern under the fourth exemption. But in that case, all parties agreed that the information was financial. Id. at 677. At issue was whether personal privacy rights were a factor in deciding whether the admittedly financial information was also confidential. Thus, the district court's reliance on National Parks II was misplaced. 55 It remains to consider whether a list of organizations in which one has financial interests, without dollar amounts, is financial information. Lacking guidance in the legislative history, we must give the term financial its ordinary meaning( ). Board of Trade, 627 F.2d at 403 (footnote omitted). In our view, the list of organizations required by Form 474 is within the common understanding of the term financial. Indeed, we cannot think of any description of that information that would not use the word financial or a synonym. 56