NH Right to Life v. US Dept. of Health & Human, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 NH Right to Life v. US Dept. of Health & Human, 1st Cir. (2015)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/nh-right-to-life-v-us-dept-of-health-human-1st-cir-2015 1/24

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1011

NEW HAMPSHI RE RI GHT TO LI FE,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVI CES,

Def endant , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF NEW HAMPSHI RE

[ Hon. J oseph N. Lapl ant e, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Howar d, and Kayat t a,Ci r cui t J udges.

Mi chael J . Ti er ney, wi t h whomWadl ei gh, St ar r & Pet er s, PLLC,was on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Set h R. Af r ame, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whom J ohn P. Kacavas, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

Febr uary 4, 2015



KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. I n 2011, t he Depar t ment of

Heal t h and Human Ser vi ces ( "Depar t ment " ) awarded f ederal grant

f unds di r ect l y t o Pl anned Parent hood of Nort her n New Engl and

( "Pl anned Par ent hood") . New Hampshi r e Ri ght t o Li f e ( "Ri ght t o

Li f e" ) t hen f i l ed a r equest under t he Freedom of I nf or mat i on Act

( "FOI A") , 5 U. S. C. § 552, and ul t i mat el y thi s l awsui t , seeki ng

document s rel at ed t o t he awar d of t hat f eder al gr ant . The

Depar t ment pr oduced some document s, but wi t hhel d ot hers, ci t i ng

FOI A exempt i ons f or conf i dent i al commer ci al i nf or mat i on, i d.

§ 552( b) ( 4) ( Exempt i on 4) , and i nt er - or i nt r a- agency memoranda,

i d. § 552( b) ( 5) ( Exempt i on 5) . We af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

r ul i ng t hat t he Depart ment pr oper l y wi t hhel d t he subj ect document s

under FOI A Exempt i ons 4 and 5.

I.Background

A. Direct Award Of Federal Grant To Planned Parenthood

Pr i or t o 2011, t he Depar t ment hi st or i cal l y awar ded

Ti t l e X1 f eder al gr ant s t o New Hampshi r e, whi ch i n t ur n di sper sed

a combi nat i on of f eder al and st ate f unds t hr ough subgr ant s t o

var i ous ent i t i es. Ti t l e X f eder al gr ant s "assi st i n t he

est abl i shment and oper at i on of vol unt ar y f ami l y pl anni ng pr oj ect s

whi ch . . . of f er a br oad r ange of accept abl e and ef f ect i ve f ami l y

1 Ti t l e X r ef er s t o Ti t l e X of t he Publ i c Heal t h Ser vi cesAct , cr eat ed by the Fami l y Pl anni ng Ser vi ces and Popul at i onResear ch Act of 1970. Pub. L. 91–572, § 6( c) , 84 St at . 1504,1506–08, codi f i ed as amended at 42 U. S. C. §§ 300- - 300a- 6.

-2-



pl anni ng met hods and servi ces ( i ncl udi ng nat ur al f ami l y pl anni ng

met hods, i nf er t i l i t y ser vi ces, and ser vi ces f or adol escent s) . " 42

U. S. C. § 300( a) . Pl anned Par ent hood hi st or i cal l y r ecei ved one of

t hese subgr ant s, i ncl udi ng Ti t l e X f eder al f unds, f r om New

Hampshi r e. As of J ul y 1, 2011, Pl anned Par ent hood oper at ed cl i ni cs

i n si x di f f er ent New Hampshi r e muni ci pal i t i es: Manchest er , Der r y,

Keene, Exet er , West Lebanon, and Cl aremont .

I n J une 2011, t he New Hampshi r e Execut i ve Counci l chose

not t o award any subgr ant t o Pl anned Par ent hood, expr essi ng concern

t hat t axpayer f unds wer e bei ng used t o subsi di ze abor t i ons. 2 New

Hampshi r e' s deci si on meant t hat unl ess a new pr ovi der r ecei ved t he

f unds, l arge por t i ons of t he st at e woul d no l onger have access t o

Ti t l e X ser vi ces. I n J ul y 2011, t he Depar t ment asked New Hampshi r e

f or i nf or mat i on on how i t woul d ensur e cont i nued pr ovi si on of Ti t l e

X servi ces i n ar eas pr evi ousl y served by Pl anned Par ent hood. I n

mi d- August 2011, t he New Hampshi r e Depar t ment of Heal t h and Human

Ser vi ces i nf ormed t he Depar t ment t hat t hey coul d not f i nd a

r epl acement pr ovi der f or those areas. New Hampshi r e t hen

r el i nqui shed what woul d have been Pl anned Par ent hood' s por t i on of

t he f eder al f unds.

The Depar t ment consi dered al t er nat i ve opt i ons, i ncl udi ng

bypassi ng New Hampshi r e' s Execut i ve Counci l , and di r ect l y awardi ng

2 New Hampshi r e' s Execut i ve Counci l had t hi s concer n despi t et he f act t hat Ti t l e X pr ohi bi t s t he use of i t s f unds "i n pr ogr amswher e abor t i on i s a met hod of f ami l y pl anni ng. " 42 U. S. C. § 300a- 6.

-3-





Revi ew" document , eval uat i ng Pl anned Par ent hood' s appl i cat i on. On

Sept ember 9, t he Depar t ment announced, vi a i t s websi t e, i t s i nt ent

t o di r ect l y i ssue a r epl acement gr ant t o Pl anned Par ent hood. On

Sept ember 13, t he Depar t ment f ormal l y pr ovi ded a Not i ce of Gr ant

Award t o Pl anned Par ent hood. The not i ce r equi r ed Pl anned

Parent hood to submi t t o t he Depar t ment , by December 15, 2011,

addi t i onal " i nst i t ut i onal f i l es" on "a var i et y of pol i ci es and

pr ocedur es[ . ] " Respondi ng t o t hi s not i ce, Pl anned Par ent hood

submi t t ed i t s Manual of Medi cal St andards and Gui del i nes ( "Manual " )

as wel l as i nf or mat i on on i t s f ee schedul e and per sonnel pol i ci es.

B. Right To Life's FOIA Challenge And District Court Decision

On December 22, 2011, Ri ght t o Li f e f i l ed a l awsui t under

t he FOI A, seeki ng document s r el at ed t o t he Depart ment ' s deci si on t o

pr oceed wi t h a di r ect award process, document s t hat Pl anned

Par ent hood submi t t ed as par t of i t s gr ant appl i cat i on, and

document s r el ated to t he Depart ment ' s deci si on t o award that gr ant

t o Pl anned Par ent hood. Af t er bei ng sued, t he Depart ment r el eased

mor e than 2, 500 pages of document s. The Depar t ment det ermi ned t hat

some port i ons of t he Manual wer e exempt f r om di scl osur e under t he

FOI A, but i nt ended t o r el ease t he r emai nder , and so i nf ormed

Pl anned Par ent hood. Pl anned Par ent hood r esponded by argui ng t hat

i t s ent i r e Manual const i t ut ed conf i dent i al commer ci al i nf or mat i on,

and t hus was exempt f r om di scl osur e under t he FOI A. See 5 U. S. C.

§ 552( b) ( 4) . The Depart ment r ej ect ed t hi s argument . Pl anned

-5-



Par ent hood count er ed by commenci ng an act i on i n di st r i ct cour t ,

seeki ng to enj oi n the Depar t ment f r om r el easi ng any por t i on of t he

Manual .

The di st r i ct cour t r emanded t he mat t er t o t he Depar t ment

t o "r econsi der i t s FOI A det er mi nat i on i n l i ght of addi t i onal

i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded by [ Pl anned Par ent hood] about speci f i c

por t i ons of t he [ M] anual , and pr oduce a more compr ehensi ve

expl anat i on f or any det er mi nat i on t hat por t i ons of t he [M] anual ar e

subj ect t o di scl osur e despi t e [ Pl anned Par ent hood' s] obj ect i ons. "

Upon r econsi der at i on, t he Depart ment deci ded t o wi t hhol d or r edact

addi t i onal por t i ons of t he Manual . The Depar t ment al so cont i nued

t o wi t hhol d var i ous ot her document s or port i ons of document s,

i nvoki ng FOI A Exempt i ons 4, 5, and 6. The Depar t ment gave Ri ght t o

Li f e a Vaughn I ndex, cor r el at i ng wi t hhel d document s t o par t i cul ar

FOI A exempt i ons. 3 Ri ght t o Li f e and t he Depar t ment t hen f i l ed

cr oss mot i ons f or summary j udgment , see Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56, t o

determi ne whether t he Depar t ment pr oper l y i nvoked t hese FOI A

exempt i ons.

3 A Vaughn i ndex i s "[ a] compr ehensi ve l i st of al l document st hat t he gover nment want s t o shi el d f r om di scl osure i n Freedom of I nf or mat i on Act ( FOI A) l i t i gat i on, each document bei ng accompani ed

by a st at ement of j ust i f i cat i on f or nondi scl osur e. . . . The nameder i ves f r om Vaughn v. R[ osen] , 484 F. 2d 820 ( D. C. Ci r . 1973) . "Bl ack' s Law Di ct i onary 1693 ( 9t h ed. 2009) . A Vaughn i ndex i snecessar y i n FOI A l i t i gat i on, as "onl y t he par t y opposi ngdi scl osur e wi l l have access t o al l t he f act s. " Chur ch of Sci ent ol ogy I nt ' l v. Uni t ed St at es Dep' t of J ust i ce, 30 F. 3d 224,228 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) .

-6-



The di st r i ct cour t par t i al l y gr ant ed and par t i al l y deni ed

bot h par t i es' mot i ons f or summary j udgment . The di st r i ct cour t

f ound t hat t he "vast maj or i t y" of document s wer e pr oper l y wi t hhel d

under FOI A exempt i ons, but t hat t he Depar t ment di d not meet i t s

bur den t o j ust i f y wi t hhol di ng a f ew cat egor i es of document s. The

di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat Exempt i on 4 appl i ed t o the Manual , t he

l et t er descr i bi ng t he Manual ' s st andar ds and gui del i nes, t he Fees

and Col l ect i ons Pol i ci es, and a document t i t l ed "Steps i n

Est abl i shi ng our Fee Schedul e. "

The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat Exempt i on 5 appl i ed t o an

e- mai l chai n between Depar t ment empl oyees and at t orneys r el at i ng t o

t he l egal i t y of t he di r ect awar d pr ocess, an e- mai l chai n about t he

r at i onal e f or t he r epl acement gr ant ' s f undi ng amount , and mul t i pl e

dr af t s of a publ i c announcement of t he Assi st ant Secr et ar y' s i nt ent

t o i ssue a r epl acement gr ant t o Pl anned Par ent hood. The di st r i ct

cour t al so f ound that t he Depar t ment met i t s bur den f or i nvoki ng

t he at t or ney- cl i ent and wor k pr oduct pr i vi l eges, as r ecogni zed by

Exempt i on 5, f or var i ous document s.

Ri ght t o Li f e appeal s, seeki ng di scl osur e of t he

f ol l owi ng document s t hat ar e ei t her par t i al l y r edact ed or ent i r el y

wi t hhel d: t he Manual ( Vaughn i ndex cat egor y 38) ; a l et t er

descr i bi ng the Manual ( Vaughn i ndex cat egory 39) ; Pl anned

Par ent hood' s Fees and Col l ect i on Pol i ci es ( Vaughn i ndex cat egor y

37) ; "St eps t o Est abl i shi ng our Fee Schedul e" document ( Vaughn

-7-



i ndex cat egory 35) ; and var i ous i nt ernal Depar t ment communi cat i ons

( Vaughn i ndex cat egor i es 11, 15–16, 18–19, 23–25, 30, 33) . [ BB 19-

20, 22, 28- 29, 31. ]

II. Standard of Review

We r evi ew de novo t he di st r i ct cour t ' s det er mi nat i on t hat

t he Depar t ment was ent i t l ed t o summar y j udgment based on i t s Vaughn

i ndex and af f i davi t s. Car pent er v. Uni t ed St at es Dep' t of J ust i ce,

470 F. 3d 434, 437 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . The gover nment bear s t he bur den

of demonst r at i ng that a cl ai med exempt i on appl i es. Chur ch of

Sci ent ol ogy I nt ' l v. Uni t ed St at es Dep' t of J ust i ce, 30 F. 3d 224,

228 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) .

III. Analysis

The FOI A obl i gat es f eder al agenci es t o "make ' prompt l y

avai l abl e' t o any per son, upon r equest , what ever ' r ecor ds' t he

agency possesses unl ess t hose ' r ecor ds' f al l wi t hi n any of ni ne

l i st ed exempt i ons. " I d. ( quot i ng 5 U. S. C. §§ 552( a) ( 3) , ( b) ) . The

FOI A' s pr i mar y pur pose i s t o "open agency act i on t o t he l i ght of

publ i c scr ut i ny", "ensur [ i ng] an i nf or med ci t i zenr y, vi t al t o t he

f unct i oni ng of a democrat i c soci et y. " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The FOI A i s the l egi sl at i ve embodi ment of

J ust i ce Br andei s' s f amous adage, " [ s] unl i ght i s . . . t he best of

di si nf ect ant s[ . ] " Loui s D. Br andei s, Ot her Peopl e' s Money 92

( Freder i ck A. St okes Co. 1914) ; see al so Ar onson v. I . R. S. , 973

F. 2d 962, 966 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ( not i ng t hat t he FOI A' s basi c ai m i s

-8-



"sunl i ght ") . "The pol i cy under l yi ng [ t he] FOI A i s t hus one of

br oad di scl osur e, and t he government must suppl y any i nf ormat i on

r equest ed by any i ndi vi dual unl ess i t det er mi nes t hat a speci f i c

exempt i on, nar r owl y const r ued, appl i es. " Chur ch of Sci ent ol ogy, 30

F. 3d at 228.

Here, t he Depar t ment r el i es on FOI A Exempt i ons 4 and 5

onl y. Exempt i on 4 shi el ds f r om di scl osur e "t r ade secret s and

commer ci al or f i nanci al i nf or mat i on obt ai ned f r om a per son and

pr i vi l eged or conf i dent i al . " 5 U. S. C. § 552( b) ( 4) . Exempt i on 5

shi el ds f r om di scl osur e "i nt er - agency or i nt r a- agency memor andums

or l et t er s whi ch woul d not be avai l abl e by l aw t o a par t y ot her

t han an agency i n l i t i gat i on wi t h t he agency. " I d. § 552( b) ( 5) .

As expl ai ned bel ow, we hol d t hat t he Depar t ment met i t s bur den t o

show t hat Exempt i on 4 appl i es t o Pl anned Par ent hood' s submi t t ed

document s. We al so hol d t hat t he Depar t ment met i t s bur den t o show

t hat Exempt i on 5 appl i es t o i t s wi t hhel d i nt er nal document s.

A. Planned Parenthood Documents

The Depar t ment i nvokes Exempt i on 4 t o prevent di scl osi ng

por t i ons of t he Manual , a l et t er descr i bi ng t he Manual , t he Fees

and Col l ect i ons Pol i ci es, and a document t i t l ed "Steps i n

Est abl i shi ng our Fee Schedul e. " I n or der t o pr oper l y i nvoke

Exempt i on 4, t he Depar t ment must demonst r at e t hat t he i nf ormat i on

-9-



i t seeks t o pr ot ect i s bot h commer ci al and conf i dent i al . 4 See i d.

§ 552( b) ( 4) . The FOI A does not def i ne t he t er m "commer ci al , " so

cour t s have gi ven t he t er m i t s ordi nar y meani ng. See Pub. Ci t i zen

Heal t h Research Gr p. v. Food & Dr ug Admi n. , 704 F. 2d 1280, 1290

( D. C. Ci r . 1983) ; Am. Ai r l i nes, I nc. v. Nat ' l Medi at i on Bd. , 588

F. 2d 863, 870 ( 2d Ci r . 1978) ( not i ng t hat "commer ci al " i n t he FOI A

cont ext "sur el y means per t ai ni ng or r el at i ng t o or deal i ng wi t h

commer ce. ") . Commer ci al i nf or mat i on i s conf i dent i al i f di scl osur e

i s l i kel y "( 1) t o i mpai r t he Gover nment ' s abi l i t y t o obt ai n

necessary i nf or mat i on i n t he f ut ur e; or ( 2) t o cause subst ant i al

har m t o t he compet i t i ve posi t i on of t he per son f r om whom t he

i nf ormat i on was obt ai ned. " 9 t o 5 Or g. f or Women Of f i ce Worker s v.

Boar d of Gover nor s, 721 F. 2d 1, 8 ( 1st Ci r . 1983) ( quot i ng Nat ' l

Par ks & Conservat i on Ass' n v. Mort on, 498 F. 2d 765, 770 ( D. C. Ci r .

1974) ( f oot not e omi t t ed) ) . 5

4 The Depart ment i s not asser t i ng t hat t he submi t t edi nf or mat i on i s f i nanci al or pr i vi l eged under Exempt i on 4. We t husf ocus onl y on whet her t he submi t t ed i nf ormat i on i s commer ci al andconf i dent i al .

5 9 t o 5 Or g. expr essl y l ef t open, as do we her e, t hepossi bi l i t y t hat i nf or mat i on can be conf i dent i al i f di scl osur ewoul d har m i nt er est s ot her t han t he t wo i nt er est s i dent i f i ed i n

Nat ' l Par ks. 9 t o 5 Or g. , 721 F. 2d at 9 ( not i ng t hat "[ i ] f i t canbe demonst r at ed wi t h par t i cul ar i t y that a speci f i c pr i vat e orgover nment al i nt er est wi l l be har med by t he di scl osur e of commer ci al or f i nanci al i nf ormat i on, t he Gover nment shoul d not bepr ecl uded f r om i nvoki ng t he pr ot ect i on of [ E] xempt i on 4 mer el ybecause t he asser t ed i nt er est i s not pr eci sel y one of t hose t woi dent i f i ed i n Nat i onal Par ks") .

-10-



Ri ght t o Li f e makes t wo argument s f or why Exempt i on 4

does not appl y t o the r equest ed i nf or mat i on: ( 1) Pl anned

Par ent hood, as a non- pr of i t , cannot possess commer ci al i nf or mat i on;

and ( 2) even i f Pl anned Parent hood can possess commerci al

i nf or mat i on, di scl osur e of t he r equest ed i nf or mat i on poses no

l i kel i hood of subst ant i al har mt o Pl anned Par ent hood' s compet i t i ve

posi t i on.

1. Non-profits may possess commercial information.

Ri ght t o Li f e ar gues t hat because Pl anned Par ent hood i s

a non- pr of i t or gani zat i on, i t cannot be sai d t o possess commer ci al

i nf ormat i on wi t hi n t he meani ng of Exempt i on 4. We di sagr ee. I f

accept ed, t hi s ar gument woul d amount t o a per se excl usi on of non-

pr of i t ent i t i es f r om pr ot ect i on under Exempt i on 4. Nei t her t he

l anguage of t he st at ut e nor common sense l ean i n Ri ght t o Li f e' s

f avor her e. The t er m "commer ci al " as used i n t he st atut e modi f i es

" i nf or mat i on" and not t he ent i t y suppl yi ng t he i nf or mat i on. See 5

U. S. C. § 552( b) ( 4) . Al l sor t s of non- pr of i t s- - hospi t al s, col l eges,

and even t he Nat i onal Foot bal l League- - engage i n commerce as t hat

t er mi s or di nar i l y under st ood. How t he t ax code t r eat s i ncome f r om

t hat commerce i s a separat e i ssue t hat has no bear i ng on our

i nqui r y her e.

Apar t f r om ar gui ng t hat non- pr of i t s cannot possess

commer ci al i nf or mat i on, Ri ght t o Li f e does not cl ai m t hat t he

-11-



i nf ormat i on i n t he document s i s somehow not ot her wi se commerci al . 6

These documents- - t he Manual , t he l et t er descr i bi ng t he Manual , t he

f ees and col l ect i ons pol i ci es, and t he "Steps i n Est abl i shi ng our

Fee Schedul e" document - - out l i ne Pl anned Par ent hood' s oper at i ons and

f ees. That i s t o say, t hey out l i ne t he amount s Pl anned Par ent hood

char ges cust omer s f or i t s ser vi ces, and how i t pr oduces t hose

ser vi ces f or sal e. These document s thus sur el y per t ai n or r el at e

t o commer ce as t hat t er m i s ordi nar i l y under st ood. See, e. g. , Pub.

Ci t i zen Heal t h Resear ch Gr p. , 704 F. 2d at 1290.

2. The subject documents are confidential.

We tur n now t o t he quest i on of whether t hi s undoubt edl y

commer ci al i nf or mat i on i s al so ' conf i dent i al ' under FOI A Exempt i on

4. See 9 t o 5 Or g. , 721 F. 2d at 8; 5 U. S. C. § 552( b) ( 4) .

Commer ci al i nf or mat i on i s conf i dent i al under Exempt i on 4 i f

di scl osur e i s l i kel y to ei t her : ( 1) "i mpai r t he Gover nment ' s

abi l i t y t o obt ai n necessar y i nf or mat i on i n t he f ut ur e"; or ( 2)

"cause subst ant i al har m t o t he compet i t i ve posi t i on of t he per son

f r om whom t he i nf or mat i on was obt ai ned. " 9 t o 5 Or g. , 721 F. 2d at

8 ( quot i ng Nat ' l Par ks, 498 F. 2d at 770) . The Depar t ment i s not

ar gui ng t he f i r st pr ong. When eval uat i ng t he second pr ong, " t he

6 Ri ght t o Li f e does make a f al l back ar gument t hat , even i f a non- pr of i t can possess commer ci al i nf or mat i on, i nf or mat i ont ender ed i n or der t o get a f eder al gr ant ( i . e. , get t i ng a check f orr ender i ng ser vi ces) i s somehow per se non- commerci al . But noprecedent suppor t s such a cl ai m. Nor can we see any r eason why t henat ure of t he i nf ormat i on somehow changes when suppl i ed t o get sucha gr ant .

-12-



cour t need not conduct a sophi st i cat ed economi c anal ysi s of t he

l i kel y ef f ect s of di scl osur e. " Pub. Ci t i zen Heal t h Resear ch Gr p. ,

704 F. 2d at 1291. But " [ c] oncl usor y or gener al i zed al l egat i ons"

wi l l not suf f i ce. I d. Par t i es opposi ng di scl osur e need not

demonst r at e act ual compet i t i ve harm; i nst ead, t hey need onl y show

act ual compet i t i on and a l i kel i hood of subst ant i al compet i t i ve

i nj ur y i n or der t o "br i ng [ t hat ] commer ci al i nf or mat i on wi t hi n t he

r eal m of conf i dent i al i t y. " I d. ; accor d Shar key v. Food & Dr ug

Admi n. , 250 F. App' x 284, 288 ( 11t h Ci r . 2007) ; Li on Rai si ns I nc.

v. Uni t ed St at es Dep' t of Agr i c. , 354 F. 3d 1072, 1079 ( 9t h Ci r .

2004) ; Ut ah v. Uni t ed St at es Dep' t of I nt er i or , 256 F. 3d 967, 970

( 10t h Ci r . 2001) ; Nat ur al Res. Def . Counci l , I nc. v. Uni t ed St at es

Dep' t of I nt er i or , No. 13 Ci v. 942( PAE) , 2014 WL 3871159, at *13

( S. D. N. Y. Aug. 5, 2014) .

For t he pur poses of awardi ng t he gr ant i n 2011, both New

Hampshi r e and t he Depar t ment det ermi ned t hat Pl anned Par ent hood was

t he onl y Ti t l e X pr ovi der i n t he r egi on. Ri ght t o Li f e cont ends

t hat t he Depar t ment cannot change posi t i ons and now argue agai nst

di scl osur e on t he gr ound t hat Pl anned Par ent hood woul d l i kel y f ace

subst ant i al compet i t i ve har m.

Ri ght t o Li f e' s vi ew of act ual compet i t i on i s myopi c,

f ocusi ng onl y on t he ad- hoc, non- compet i t i ve gr ant pr ocess t hat

t ook pl ace i n 2011. The di st r i ct cour t apt l y not ed t hat Pl anned

Par ent hood f aces pl ent y of compet i t i on f r om ot her ent i t i es f or

-13-



pat i ent s. Many of Pl anned Par ent hood' s ser vi ces ar e al so pr ovi ded

by hospi t al s and heal t h cl i ni cs. Fur t her , t he Ti t l e X gr ant

pr ocess i n New Hampshi r e wi l l be open to ot her bi ds i n t he f ut ur e.

Even i n 2011, a pot ent i al compet i t or - - t he Manchest er Communi t y

Heal t h Cent er - - r equest ed i nf or mat i on f r om t he Depar t ment about

appl yi ng f or t he same gr ant . Al t hough Pl anned Par ent hood

admi t t edl y di d not compet e f or t he f eder al gr ant i n 2011, i t

cer t ai nl y does f ace act ual compet i t or s- - communi t y heal t h cl i ni cs- -

i n a number of di f f er ent ar enas, and i n f ut ur e Ti t l e X bi ds. Thi s

sat i sf i es t he "act ual compet i t i on" r equi r ement . See, e. g. , Ut ah,

256 F. 3d at 970–71.

Havi ng est abl i shed t hat t he document s cont ai n commerci al

i nf or mat i on, and t hat Pl anned Par ent hood f aces act ual compet i t i on

i n a var i et y of cont ext s, we t ur n t o t he speci f i c document s Ri ght

t o Li f e want s di scl osed, and whet her di scl osur e of t hose document s

woul d l i kel y cause subst ant i al compet i t i ve har m t o Pl anned

Par ent hood. 7

The Manual , and t hus t he l et t er t hat descr i bes i t ,

"pr ovi des a model f or oper at i ng a f ami l y pl anni ng cl i ni c and f or

7 We gauge t he r i sk of subst ant i al har m t o Pl anned

Par ent hood' s compet i t i ve posi t i on as of t he t i me of t he di st r i ctcour t deci si on. See, e. g. , N. Y. Ti mes Co. v. Uni t ed St at es Dep' tof J ust i ce, 756 F. 3d 100, 110 n. 8 ( 2nd Ci r . 2014) . Requi r i ng anagency t o updat e i t s FOI A r esponses "based on post - r esponseoccur r ences coul d cr eat e an endl ess cycl e of j udi ci al l y mandat edr epr ocessi ng. " Bonner v. Uni t ed St at es Dep' t of St at es, 921 F. 2d1148, 1152 ( D. C. Ci r . 1991) .

-14-



pr ovi di ng . . . ser vi ces consi st ent wi t h [ Pl anned Par ent hood' s]

uni que model of care. " The Nat i onal Medi cal Commi t t ee of Pl anned

Par ent hood Federat i on of Amer i ca devel oped t he Manual , i n

col l abor at i on wi t h l ocal af f i l i at e chapt er s, l i ke t he Nor t her n New

Engl and branch. Pl anned Par ent hood t r eat ed t hese document s as

conf i dent i al i nf or mat i on not gener al l y avai l abl e t o t he publ i c. A

pot ent i al f ut ur e compet i t or coul d take advant age of t he

i nst i t ut i onal knowl edge cont ai ned i n t he Manual , and t he l et t er

descr i bi ng t he Manual , t o compet e wi t h Pl anned Par ent hood f or

pat i ent s, gr ant s, or ot her f undi ng. We t her ef or e agr ee wi t h t he

di st r i ct cour t t hat t he Depar t ment met i t s bur den f or i nvoki ng

Exempt i on 4 f or t he Manual and Medi cal St andards, and t he l et t er

cont ai ni ng descr i pt i ons of t he same- - Vaughn i ndex cat egor i es 38 and

39.

The Fees and Col l ect i ons Pol i ci es and t he "St eps i n

Est abl i shi ng our Fee Schedul e" document s cont ai n i nf ormat i on t hat

" i dent i f i es cost di f f er ent i al s bet ween ser vi ces, i dent i f i es al l

ser vi ces pr ovi ded[ , ] and set s f or t h t he f ee scal e. " Pl anned

Par ent hood t r eated t hese document s as conf i dent i al i nf ormat i on not

gener al l y avai l abl e t o t he publ i c. Pr i ci ng i nf or mat i on l i ke t hat

cont ai ned i n t hese document s i s undoubt edl y val uabl e i nf ormat i on

f or compet i t or s. Nor i s ther e any suggest i on t hat compet i t or s have

access t o t hi s i nf or mat i on ( ot her t han per haps anecdot al l y and

i ncompl et el y) . We t hus agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t he

-15-



Depar t ment met i t s bur den f or est abl i shi ng a l i kel i hood of

subst ant i al compet i t i ve har m f r om t he di scl osur e of Pl anned

Par ent hood' s " St eps i n Est abl i shi ng our Fee Schedul e" document and

i t s Fees and Col l ect i ons Pol i ci es- - Vaughn i ndex cat egor i es 35 and

37. 8

B. Department Documents

Ri ght t o Li f e al so seeks i nt er nal Depart ment document s

t hat are wi t hhel d under Exempt i on 5. Exempt i on 5 shi el ds document s

t hat ar e nor mal l y i mmune f r om ci vi l di scover y, i ncl udi ng t hose

pr ot ect ed by t he del i ber at i ve pr ocess and at t or ney- cl i ent

pr i vi l eges. See Nat ' l Labor Rel at i ons Bd. v. Sear s, Roebuck & Co. ,

421 U. S. 132, 149- 55 ( 1975) ; see al so El ec. Front i er Found. v.

Uni t ed St at es Dep' t of J ust i ce, 739 F. 3d 1, 7 ( D. C. Ci r . 2014)

( Exempt i on 5 appl i es " t o document s t hat are pr edeci si onal and

del i ber at i ve, meani ng they r ef l ect advi sor y opi ni ons,

r ecommendat i ons, and del i ber at i ons compr i si ng part of a pr ocess by

whi ch gover nment al deci si ons and pol i ci es ar e f or mul at ed" )

( quot at i ons and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ; Mead Dat a Cent r al , I nc. v.

Uni t ed St at es Dep' t of Ai r For ce, 566 F. 2d 242, 252 ( D. C. Ci r .

1977) ( Exempt i on 5 " i s i nt ended t o pr ot ect t he qual i t y of agency

8 The di st r i ct cour t appl i ed t he l essened st andar d t ovol unt ar y submi ssi ons, enunci at ed i n Cr i t i cal Mass Ener gy Pr oj ectv. Nucl ear Regul at ory Comm' n, 975 F. 2d 871, 879 ( D. C. Ci r . 1992) .See New Hampshi r e Ri ght t o Li f e v. Dep' t of Heal t h and Human Ser v. ,976 F. Supp. 2d 43, 54 ( D. N. H. Sept . 30, 2013) . We decl i ne at t hi st i me t o adopt t hat l essened st andar d f or vol unt ar y submi ssi ons.

-16-



deci si on- maki ng by pr event i ng t he di scl osur e r equi r ement of t he

FOI A f r om cut t i ng of f t he f l ow of i nf or mat i on t o agency deci si on-

maker s. Cer t ai nl y t hi s cover s pr of essi onal advi ce on l egal

quest i ons whi ch bear s on t hose deci si ons. " ) . Exempt i on 5 pr ot ect s

gover nment "agenci es f r ombei ng ' f or ced t o oper at e i n a f i shbowl . ' "

I d. ( quot i ng Envt l . Pr ot . Agency v. Mi nk, 410 U. S. 73, 87 ( 1973) ) .

I t f aci l i t at es gover nment deci si on maki ng by: ( 1) assur i ng

subor di nat es wi l l f eel f r ee t o pr ovi de uni nhi bi t ed opi ni ons,

( 2) pr otect i ng agai nst pr ematur e di scl osur e of pr oposed gover nment

pol i ci es, and ( 3) pr event i ng conf usi on among t he publ i c t hat may

r esul t f r om r el easi ng var i ous rati onal es f or agency acti on.

Pr ovi dence J our nal Co. v. Uni t ed St at es Dep' t of Ar my, 981 F. 2d

552, 557 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ( quot i ng Coast al St at es Gas Cor p. v. Dep' t

of Ener gy, 617 F. 2d 854, 866 ( D. C. Ci r . 1980) ) .

Ri ght t o Li f e advances t wo ar gument s f or r ej ect i ng t he

Depar t ment ' s rel i ance on Exempt i on 5: Fi r st , i t ar gues t hat some

of t he document s t hat ar e out si de t he scope of t he at t or ney- cl i ent

pr i vi l ege ar e al so not pr edeci si onal as a mat t er of si mpl e

chr onol ogy; and, second, i t argues t hat t he Depar t ment wai ved any

obj ect i on t o pr oduci ng t he document s t hat r ef l ect t he opi ni ons of

Depar t ment l awyer s because t he Depar t ment adopt ed t he opi ni ons of

l egal counsel as pol i cy of t he Depart ment . We addr ess each

argument i n t ur n.

-17-



1. The withheld documents are all predecisional.

To f i t wi t hi n Exempt i on 5, t he Depar t ment must

demonst r at e t hat t he communi cat i ons were bot h "pr edeci si onal " and

"del i ber at i ve. " Pr ovi dence J our nal , 981 F. 2d at 557 ( i nt er nal

quot at i on omi t t ed) . Ri ght t o Li f e ar gues t hat t he document s ar e

not del i ber at i ve onl y because they ar e not pr edeci si onal , so we

l i mi t our i nqui r y t o whet her t hey ar e i ndeed pr edeci si onal . A

document i s pr edeci si onal i f t he agency can: " ( 1) pi npoi nt t he

speci f i c agency deci si on t o whi ch t he document cor r el at es, ( 2)

est abl i sh t hat i t s aut hor pr epar ed t he document f or t he pur pose of

assi st i ng t he agency of f i ci al char ged wi t h maki ng t he agency

deci si on, and ( 3) ver i f y t hat t he document pr ecedes, i n t empor al

sequence, t he deci si on t o whi ch i t r el at es. " I d. ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The di sput e her e cent er s

on t he t empor al sequence of Depar t ment document s and deci si ons, and

on i dent i f yi ng t he deci si ons t o whi ch t he par t i cul ar document s

r el at e. The f ol l owi ng chr onol ogy out l i nes the r el evant deci si onal

t i mel i ne.

On August 8, 2011, t her e was an e- mai l chai n (Vaughn

i ndex cat egory 11) bet ween Depar t ment empl oyees and Of f i ce of

General Counsel at t orneys r egardi ng whether t he Depar t ment coul d

l egal l y i ssue a r epl acement gr ant . On August 9, Secr et ar y Sebel i us

was br i ef ed on t he i ssue. Subsequent l y, on August 10, t he Whi t e

House was al so br i ef ed on t hi s al t er nat i ve pl an. Ri ght t o Li f e

-18-



asser t s t hat t hi s br i ef i ng const i t ut ed "appr oval f r om t he Whi t e

House. " Ri ght t o Li f e ci t es as evi dence of Whi t e House "appr oval "

an i nf or mal e- mai l st at i ng, " [ t ] he WH was br i ef ed and t hey ar e

get t i ng down t o penni es and ni ckel s. " On August 12, t here was an

e- mai l chai n ( Vaughn i ndex cat egory 15) di scussi ng a dr af t document

r egardi ng f undi ng f or t he r epl acement gr ant . On August 18, t her e

was another e- mai l chai n addr essi ng f undi ng f or t he repl acement

gr ant ( Vaughn i ndex category 18) . Fi nal l y, on August 19, OASH' s

execut i ve of f i cer si gned a bl ank l i ne i ndi cat i ng "Appr ove"

under neat h t he headi ng "Deci si on" on t he Sol e Sour ce J ust i f i cat i on

memor andum.

On Sept ember 28, 2011, t hree out of f i ve member s of t he

New Hampshi r e Execut i ve Counci l f i l ed a l et t er pr ot est i ng t he

Depar t ment ' s deci si on wi t h t he Gover nment Account abi l i t y Of f i ce

( "GAO") , carbon copyi ng Kathl een Sebel i us, Depart ment Secr et ary.

I n a l et t er dated Oct ober 5, 2011, t he GAO decl i ned t o r evi ew t he

Execut i ve Counci l member s' pr ot est f or l ack of j ur i sdi ct i on. The

Depart ment l ater deci ded not t o pr ovi de i t s own r esponse.

Ri ght t o Li f e cont ends t hat t he deci si on t o di r ect l y

awar d Ti t l e X f unds t o Pl anned Parent hood was made at t he Whi t e

House br i ef i ng on August 10, 2011. I f t hi s wer e t r ue, al l

per t i nent document s cr eated af t er t hat date woul d be post -

deci si onal , and t hus not exempt f r omdi scl osur e under Exempt i on 5.

See i d. The r ecor d, however , does not suppor t Ri ght t o Li f e' s

-19-



cont ent i on. On i t s f ace, t he e- mai l Ri ght t o Li f e ci t es as

evi dence of Whi t e House appr oval i ndi cat es t hat a deci si on, whi l e

per haps cl ose, had not yet been f i nal i zed. The phr ase "get t i ng

down t o penni es and ni ckel s" pl ai nl y suggest s a pendi ng deci si on,

not a f i nal deci si on f or Exempt i on 5 pur poses. That l eaves

August 19- - t he date t he OASH execut i ve si gned the appr oval l i ne on

t he Sol e Sour ce J ust i f i cat i on memor andum- - as t he dat e the deci si on

was made t o pr oceed wi t h a di r ect award pr ocess. 9 We t heref ore

r ej ect Ri ght t o Li f e' s argument t hat Vaughn i ndex cat egor i es 15–16

and 18–19, al l cr eat ed pr i or t o August 19 wer e post - deci si onal

document s. 10

We t urn next t o t he document s cover ed by Vaughn i ndex

categor i es 23–25 and 33. Al l of t hese document s post - date t he

August 19 deci si on t o pr oceed wi t h a non- compet i t i ve sol e- sour ce

gr ant pr ocess. Ther ef or e, Ri ght t o Li f e ar gues, t hey ar e not pr e-

deci si onal . The pr obl em wi t h t hi s ar gument i s t hat t her e wer e

9 Thr oughout i t s br i ef , Ri ght t o Li f e t out s t he t i t l e of t he"Sol e Sour ce J ust i f i cat i on" memor andum, and suggest s t hat i ti ndi cat es t hat t he subst ance of t he memor andum i t sel f i s "a posthoc j ust i f i cat i on of a deci si on t hat had been made sever al daysear l i er . " Read as a whol e, t he document ' s subst ance makes cl eart hat i t i s a r ecommendat i on l et t er , seeki ng appr oval f r om asuper i or : " I r ecommend t hat you appr ove t hi s r equest f or a sol e

sour ce repl acement gr ant t o Pl anned Par ent hood of Nor t hern NewEngl and. "

10 Categor i es 16 and 19 are undated, but , gi ven t hei r cont ent ,necessar i l y pr edate t he August 19 deci si on. Category 16 cover sdr af t s of a r at i onal e f or t he gr ant f undi ng amount . Cat egor y 19cover s ear l y dr af t s of t he Sol e Sour ce J ust i f i cat i on memor andum.

-20-



ot her r el evant deci si ons made on or af t er August 19, i ncl udi ng: ( 1)

t he Depar t ment ' s deci si on on Sept ember 9 t o publ i cl y announce i t s

i nt ent t o i ssue t he gr ant awar d t o Pl anned Par ent hood, and ( 2) t he

Depart ment ' s deci si on t o not pr ovi de a separate response t o New

Hampshi r e' s pr ot est of t hat di r ect awar d.

Vaughn i ndex cat egor i es 23–25 r el ate to and pr e- date the

September 9 publ i c announcement t hat t he Depar t ment i ntended t o

di r ect l y award a gr ant t o Pl anned Par ent hood. These document s deal

wi t h the Depar t ment ' s deci si on of how and what t o communi cat e to

t he publ i c, whi ch i s a deci si on i n and of i t sel f . Vaughn i ndex

cat egor i es 23–25 ar e not post - deci si onal . Ri ght t o Li f e si mpl y

mi si dent i f i es t he deci si on t o whi ch t hese document s r el at e.

Si mi l ar l y, t he document s i ncl uded i n Vaughn i ndex

cat egor y 33 i nvol ve communi cat i ons bet ween Depar t ment empl oyees and

at t orneys r el at i ng t o whet her t he Depart ment shoul d al so respond t o

t he New Hampshi r e Execut i ve Counci l ' s pr ot est . Thi s e- mai l chai n

necessar i l y pr edates any deci si on by the Depart ment t o wi t hhol d a

separ at e r esponse t o t he pr ot est . We ar e sat i sf i ed t hat t he

Depar t ment appr opr i at el y met i t s bur den f or wi t hhol di ng these

document s under Exempt i on 5.

2. The Department Did Not Waive Its Privileges By

Adopting Counsel's Legal Advice.

I n r espondi ng t o Ri ght t o Li f e' s FOI A r equest , t he

Depart ment r eveal ed t hat an at t orney i n t he Of f i ce of Gener al

Counsel had advi sed t he Di r ect or of t he OASH Gr ant s Management

-21-



Of f i ce t hat i t was l egal t o i ssue a r epl acement gr ant . The

Depart ment r edacted any mater i al t hat r eveal ed the basi s or

r easoni ng behi nd such advi ce. The Depart ment never publ i cl y

announced ei t her t he advi ce or t he r easoni ng behi nd t he advi ce.

Nor does i t r el y on t he advi ce i n t hi s l i t i gat i on.

Ri ght t o Li f e advances a si ngl e ar gument f or f i ndi ng t hat

t he Depar t ment must now produce t he communi cat i on wi t h OCG counsel .

I t cl ai ms t hat , by i ssui ng t he r epl acement gr ant , t he Depar t ment

adopt ed counsel ' s advi ce as " pol i cy of t he Agency. " 11

The r ecor d provi des no f act ual suppor t f or t hi s cl ai m

unl ess one pr esumes t hat every t i me an agency act s i n accor d wi t h

counsel ' s vi ew i t necessar i l y adopt s counsel ' s vi ew as " pol i cy of

t he Agency. " As a cat egor i cal r ul e t hi s makes no sense, especi al l y

wher e counsel ' s l egal advi ce i s s i mpl y t hat t her e i s no i mpedi ment

t o t he agency doi ng what i t want s t o do.

For pr ecedent , Ri ght t o Li f e poi nt s onl y t o Nat ' l Labor

Rel at i ons Bd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 421 U. S. 132 ( 1975) , and

Br ennan Cent er v. Uni t ed St at es Dep' t of J ust i ce, 697 F. 3d 184 ( 2nd

Ci r . 2012) . Each of t hese opi ni ons, however , hi nged di scl osur e of

l egal counsel ' s advi ce on whether t he agency actual l y adopt ed t he

r easoni ng behi nd counsel ' s opi ni on as i t s own. See Renegot at i on

Bd. v. Gr umman Ai r cr af t Eng' g Corp. , 421 U. S. 168, 184–85 ( 1975)

11 Ri ght t o Li f e does not ar gue t hat t he Depart ment wai ved i t spr i vi l ege by f ai l i ng t o r edact f r om t he Sol e Sour ce J ust i f i cat i onmemor andum t he shor t descr i pt i on of t he concl usi on of counsel .

-22-



( compani on case t o Sear s, hol di ng t hat " [ i f ] t he evi dence ut t er l y

f ai l s t o suppor t t he concl usi on t hat t he r easoni ng i n t he r epor t s

i s adopt ed by the Boar d as i t s r easoni ng, even when i t agr ees wi t h

t he concl usi on of a r epor t , . . . t he r epor t s ar e not f i nal

opi ni ons and do f al l wi t hi n Exempt i on 5. " ) ; Br ennan Cent er , 697

F. 3d at 197 ( " [ T] he f act t hat t he agenci es act ed i n conf or mi t y wi t h

t he . . . memoranda [ does not ] est abl i sh that t he agenci es adopt ed

t hei r r easoni ng. " ) . Her e, t he Depar t ment never adopt ed, or even

ment i oned, counsel ' s r easoni ng.

"Mer e rel i ance on a document ' s concl usi ons" - - at most what

we have her e- - "does not necessar i l y i nvol ve r el i ance on a

document ' s anal ysi s; bot h wi l l or di nar i l y be needed bef or e a cour t

may pr oper l y f i nd adopt i on or i ncor por at i on by r ef er ence. " Nat i onal

Counci l of La Raza v. Dep' t of J ust i ce, 411 F. 3d 350, 358 ( 2nd Ci r .

2005) ; El ec. Front i er Found. v. Uni t ed St at es Dep' t of J ust i ce, 739

F. 3d 1, 10–11 ( D. C. Ci r . 2014) ( " [ T] he Cour t has r ef used t o equat e

r ef er ence t o a r epor t ' s concl usi ons wi t h adopt i on of i t s r easoni ng,

and i t i s t he l at t er t hat dest r oys t he pr i vi l ege. ")

I t i s a good t hi ng t hat Gover nment of f i ci al s on

appr opr i at e occasi on conf i r m wi t h l egal counsel t hat what t he

of f i ci al s wi sh t o do i s l egal . To hol d t hat t he Gover nment must

t ur n over i t s communi cat i ons wi t h counsel whenever i t act s i n t hi s

manner coul d wel l r educe t he l i kel i hood t hat advi ce wi l l be sought .

Not hi ng i n the FOI A compel s such a resul t .

-23-



IV. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we af f i r mt he di st r i ct cour t ' s

rul i ngs .

So order ed.

-24-