## Facts

- Brent Taylor submitted a FOIA request to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) seeking design drawings and engineering specifications for the Fairchild F‑45 aircraft, originally submitted to the federal government in 1935.
- The FAA withheld the records under FOIA Exemption 4, asserting they remained confidential commercial information and that disclosure would cause competitive harm to the submitter (Fairchild or its successor).
- The F‑45 had been obsolete for decades; it was no longer manufactured by the 1950s, and Fairchild was no longer meaningfully engaged in aircraft production by the time of Taylor’s request.
- In 1955, Fairchild sent a letter to the government describing the F‑45 type certificate as obsolete, authorizing the agency to loan the drawings to the public, and stating the government would have no obligation to maintain confidentiality.
- After a remand from the D.C. Circuit (rejecting claim preclusion based on earlier litigation by another requester), the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether Exemption 4 justified withholding.

## Issues

1. Whether the FAA met its burden to show the F‑45 specifications were “confidential” commercial information within FOIA Exemption 4 under the National Parks test.
2. Whether Fairchild’s 1955 authorization for public access, without confidentiality obligations, waived any Exemption 4 confidentiality claim.
3. Whether the FAA’s declarations provided reasonably specific, non-conclusory evidence that disclosure was likely to cause substantial competitive harm.

## Decision

- The court denied the FAA’s renewed motion for summary judgment.
- The court granted Taylor’s motion for summary judgment, ordering disclosure because the FAA did not establish Exemption 4 protection on the record presented.
- The court held the FAA’s showing of current commercial value and likely competitive harm was speculative and insufficiently supported.
- The court treated the 1955 letter as strong evidence of waiver and as inconsistent with any continued expectation of confidentiality.

## Legal Principles

- Under FOIA Exemption 4, the agency must justify withholding “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person” that is “privileged or confidential.”
- Under the National Parks framework for required submissions, information is “confidential” if disclosure is likely to impair the government’s ability to obtain necessary information in the future or to cause substantial competitive harm to the submitter.
- Agencies must support Exemption 4 claims with reasonably specific, non-conclusory, and non-speculative evidence; generalized assertions that disclosure could or might cause harm are insufficient.
- Voluntary authorization for public dissemination, and an express disclaimer of any confidentiality obligation, can waive confidentiality such that Exemption 4 cannot later be invoked to withhold the same information.
- The age and obsolescence of technical materials are relevant to whether they retain current commercial value and whether disclosure is likely to cause substantial competitive harm.

## Conclusion

The court required the FAA to disclose the decades-old F‑45 aircraft specifications because the agency failed to prove ongoing confidentiality or a concrete likelihood of substantial competitive harm under Exemption 4, particularly in light of the aircraft’s obsolescence and the submitter’s earlier written authorization allowing public access without confidentiality.


Taylor v. Babbitt, 760 F. Supp. 2d 80 (D.D.C. 2011)