#Sba loan status license#
Regarding the second category of information withheld, "DUNS numbers associated with individual PPP borrowers," the court finds that "these withholdings fall squarely under the Exemption 4 umbrella." The court relates that, "eveloped and maintained by, DUNS numbers are unique nine-digit identifiers for businesses." "Having contracted with SBA to support the PPP, provides – for a fee – the agency with 'access to and a limited right to use those numbers.'" This, the court finds, "plainly demonstrates that DUNS numbers are 'commercial' information 'obtained from a person.'" The court finds that "Exemption 4's third condition – confidentiality – is likewise satisfied." "The DUNS numbers are proprietary information protected by trademark, license agreement with SBA does not 'allow distribution or publication of the in any format,' and the company 'has deliberately restricted any possibility of mass accumulation of information' – and even the display of small quantities of such numbers – 'outside of a Licensed customer contract.'" The court relates that " point to three Government websites that assertedly 'make DUNS numbers available on demand and in bulk with no apparent restrictions on their use.'" The court finds that " decision to provide the Government with limited publication rights for a 'specific subset' of DUNS numbers. will provide SBA another opportunity to explain 'with reasonably specific detail' how the information at hand 'logically falls within' Exemption 4." only raises questions about whether PPP lenders truly consider and treat the relevant information as confidential." Regarding defendant's argument based on "FOIA's legislative history that supposedly 'indicates that Congress itself viewed information about the lender-borrower relationship as protected by Exemption 4' the court finds that "he fact that legislators more than fifty years ago believed that FOIA protected certain loan-related information, however, says little about the confidentiality practices of PPP lenders today vis-à-vis interim PPP loan status." "Nor do the agency's non-binding, decades-old cases from different contexts have much to offer on that critical question." Additionally, the court relates that "the agency points to its own FOIA regulations, under which 'loan status, other than charged-off or paid-in-full,' is 'generally exempt from disclosure.'" The court finds that "the fact that SBA might largely refrain from disclosing interim loan-status information does not resolve whether participating PPP lenders customarily and actually do the same." Overall, "he Court. a party-particularized inquiry' because it could not 'obtain from each of the several thousand participating PPP lenders a declaration regarding their confidentiality practices.'" "Yet nowhere does the Government suggest that it could not obtain such statements from some lenders." "A survey of that small yet meaningful subset of lenders, along with credible substantiation of any individual lender's claim of customary and actual confidentiality with respect to interim PPP loan status, would go a long way toward bringing that material within Exemption 4's sweep." "At present, however, the agency's decision to eschew a party-specific inquiry of any scope. SBA did not contact a single lender and inquire how it actually and customarily treats interim loan-status information." "Defendant nonetheless actively disclaimed any intent to make the former (mandatory) showing, insisting that it was 'not feasible' to 'conduct. Exemption 4: The court relates that "SBA invoked Exemption 4 to withhold 1) the interim payment status of individual PPP loans (along with additional data that would reveal such status) and 2) DUNS numbers associated with individual PPP borrowers." Regarding the first category, the court finds that "here is no dispute that this information – which describes the extent to which borrowers are current on their loan payments – is 'commercial or financial' data, as required under Exemption 4's initial prong." "Nor do Plaintiffs gainsay that the relevant material was 'obtained from a person' – viz., the PPP lenders who reported it to SBA via Form 1502." Regarding "whether these lenders 'customarily and actually' treat interim PPP loan status as 'private, or at least closely held,'" the court finds that "the critical inquiry for Exemption 4 is 'how the particular party customarily treats the information, not how the industry as a whole treats the information.'" "Notwithstanding the reality that it bears the 'burden of proving the provider's custom,'.Re: Request for data regarding loans approved pursuant to Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") and Economic Injury Disaster Loans ("EIDL") programĭisposition: Granting in part and denying in part defendant's supplemental motion for summary judgment granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' supplemental motion for summary judgment
0 kommentar(er)
