Opinion ID: 550
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sikorsky FOIA Request

Text: In March 2004 a New Haven, Connecticut television reporter submitted a FOIA request to the regional DCMA office (DCMA East) for, in pertinent part, all CARs DCMA had issued to Sikorsky over the past year regarding the Black Hawk helicopter. [4] The Director of DCMA East initially denied the request, concluding under Exemption 4 their release will significantly impair DCMA's ability to obtain the same quality of information from Sikorsky and from other Defense contractors in the future. Letter from Keith D. Ernst, Director, DCMA East, to Alan M. Cohn, WTNH-TV (May 7, 2004). The reporter then appealed the denial within DCMA. [5] In response, the DCMA FOIA Appeal Authority reviewed the documents and reversed DCMA East's decision. DCMA's Office of General Counsel then notified Sikorsky by letter that it planned to release the CARs, stating DCMA's new position that none of them fell under Exemption 4. Sikorsky disagreed. Citing National Parks, Sikorsky argued that Exemption 4 applied because the documents' release would likely cause Sikorsky substantial competitive harm and would significantly impair DCMA's future ability to obtain the same detail and quality of information from Sikorsky and other DoD contractors. Letter from Robert K. Huffman, Miller & Chevalier, to Richard N. Finnegan, Associate General Counsel, DCMA, at 3 (Feb. 11, 2005). Specifically, it asserted that the CARs included proprietary information regarding Sikorsky's manufacturing process and procedures and that [r]elease of this proprietary information would substantially harm Sikorsky's competitive position because its competitors would use this information to their advantage in ... adjusting their manufacturing techniques. Id. at 11 n. 4. Nevertheless, in a letter dated December 1, 2005, the DCMA FOIA Appeal Authority informed Sikorsky that DCMA had made a final agency decision to release the CARs to the reporter. Letter from Colonel Jamie L. Adams, DCMA Appeal Authority, to Robert K. Huffman, Miller & Chevalier, at 5-6 (Dec. 1, 2005). In so doing, it rejected Sikorsky's substantial competitive harm argument, stating that the asserted harm appears to be one of suffering embarrassment in the market place, which is an insufficient basis on which to prevent disclosure. Id. at 5. It also rejected Sikorsky's impairment argument, stating that the question of impairment is a question for the agency and not for Sikorsky and concluding that release of the CARs would not impair the Government's ability to obtain the same kind of information in the future. Id. at 3.