Insider Inc. v. GSA, No. 22-5330, 2024 WL 649240 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 16, 2024) (Childs, J.)

Insider Inc. v. GSA, No. 22-5330, 2024 WL 649240 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 16, 2024) (Childs, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning transition teams of outgoing President and Vice President

Disposition:  Affirming government’s motion for summary judgment and denial of requester’s cross-motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 6:  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit relates that at issue is “GSA[‘s] redact[ion of] several low-level team members’ names.”  “No party disputes the transition team members’ names qualify as ‘personnel . . . and similar files.’”  “[The requester] concedes that the transition team members whose names the GSA withheld have ‘a non-de minimis privacy interest’ in the nondisclosure of their names.”  “As private citizens, the members of the transition team have a strong privacy interest in their personal information.”  “That privacy interest is bolstered by the GSA’s showing that a ‘significant privacy interest’ in information that ‘might invite unwanted intrusions[]’ . . . exists here.”  “As the GSA has shown, after it released the names of other transition team members, [the requester] contacted them and wrote news articles discussing them by name.”  “Moreover, some GSA employees involved in the transition, and their families, were harassed by members of the public through email and phone communications.”  “Thus, the transition team members have a substantial privacy interest in the continued confidentiality of their names.” 
  
  Regarding the public interests, the court finds that “[t]he interests that [the requester] puts forth are not cognizable public interests under the FOIA, because they relate to the activities of private actors, the former executive officials on the transition teams, instead of the activities of the GSA or other government actors.”  “[A]s [the requester] acknowledges, the transition teams are not government entities . . . and [plaintiff] is unable to articulate how information about non-governmental entities like the transition teams would shed light on the activities of the government.”  “[The requester] also fails in its attempt to connect the transition team members to the GSA’s activities by relaying 1) that they are hired before the President and Vice President leave office and 2) that they must be subject to an ethics plan in the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between the transition teams and the GSA.”  “Although the transition team members are chosen by the President and Vice President while still in office, they are chosen to carry out non-governmental roles.”  “And while the GSA is required to enter into an ethics plan with incoming administrations, no such requirement applies to outgoing administrations.”  “Thus, if [the requester] uncovered ethical violations in the way that transition team members were hired or how they carried out their job responsibilities, that information would still not show what the government is up to.”  “Additionally, even if information about the transition teams could shed light on the GSA’s activities, [the requester has not explained how knowing the names of low-level transition team members would do so.”  “Nor does [the requester] successfully articulate a public interest in derivative uses of the information it seeks.”  “According to [the requester], learning the identities of the transition team members will allow it to contact those individuals as part of its investigation, and through those conversations, learn of possible government misconduct.”  “[The requester] fails to articulate a cognizable public interest, however, because its argument is purely speculative.”  “Recognizing a public interest in the name of any individual who might know about government wrongdoing would create an exception that swallows the rule.”  “And [the requester] does not articulate a non-speculative basis to conclude that the transition team members would lead it to information regarding government misconduct.”  “[The requester’s] reference to ‘media coverage expressing ethical concerns about the members of former President Trump’s 2016 transition team,’ . . . for example, suggests concerns about the former President and Vice President’s activities – not those of the GSA.”  “Finally, the GSA’s production of some high-level transition team members’ names has not waived the privacy interests of low-level transition team members.”