Rojas v. FAA, No. 17-55036 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment for the FAA in an action seeking information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In this case, plaintiff made a FOIA request after the FAA notified him that he was ineligible for an Air Traffic Control Specialist position based on his performance on a screening test called the Biographical Assessment.
The panel held that the FAA failed to show that it undertook an adequate search of the relevant documents; the records at issue were not intra-agency documents and thus not subject to Exemption 5; and the panel rejected the consultant corollary theory, which uses a functional interpretation of Exemption 5 that treats documents produced by an agency's third-party consultant as "intra-agency" memorandums. Finally, the panel rejected plaintiff's challenge to the district court and the FAA's interpretation of his FOIA request. The panel held that the FAA was not obligated under FOIA to retrieve and responsive documents, such as the underlying data to the summaries, held by APTMetrics.
Court Description: Freedom of Information Act. The panel reversed the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) in a case concerning a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request. The plaintiff submitted the FOIA request after the FAA notified him that he was ineligible for an Air Traffic Control Specialist position based on his performance on a screening test called the Biographical Assessment. The panel held that the FAA failed to conduct a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents in response to plaintiff’s FOIA request. The panel held that the records at issue were not “intra- agency” documents, and FOIA’s Exemption 5 did not apply. Joining the Sixth Circuit, the panel rejected the consultant corollary theory, adopted by the district court and some sister circuits, which uses a functional interpretation of Exemption 5 that treats documents produced by an agency’s third-party consultant as “intra-agency” memorandums. The panel rejected plaintiff’s argument that the FAA had an obligation under FOIA to retrieve any responsive documents, such as the underlying data to the summaries.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 18, 2019.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 30, 2020.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on March 2, 2021.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.