Ayyakkannu Manivannan v. Department of Energy

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1206

AYYAKKANNU MANIVANNAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, National Energy Technology Laboratory,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cv -00192-TSK-MJA)

Submitted: July 14, 2026 Decided: July 28, 2026

Before THACKER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ayyakkannu Manivannan, Appellant Pro Se. Jordan Vincent Palmer, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Ayyakkannu Manivannan filed a complaint pursuant to the Freedom of Information
Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, against the Department of Energy’s National Energy
Technology Laboratory (“NETL” or “agency”), alleging that the NETL failed to
adequately respond to several requests for records pursuant to the FOIA. The district court
granted summary judgment in favor of the NETL. For the reasons that follow, we vacate
the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.
In reviewing a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of
the government in a FOIA action, we must determine de novo whether, after
taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, there
remains no genuine issue of material fact and the government is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.
Wickwire Gavin, P.C. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 356 F.3d 588, 591 (4th Cir. 2004). Federal
agencies are required to disclose agency records unless the records may be withheld
pursuant to one of nine enumerated exemptions listed in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). We review
factual conclusions that place a document within a FOIA exemption for clear error and
legal conclusions de novo. Empower Oversight Whistleblowers & Rsch. v. Nat’l Insts. of
Health, 122 F.4th 92, 99 (4th Cir. 2024); Wickwire Gavin, 356 F.3d at 591. “We narrowly
construe the FOIA exemptions in favor of disclosure.” Wickwire Gavin, 356 F.3d at 591.
We conclude that the district court erred in finding that the NETL met its burden to
show that it properly redacted or withheld information pursuant to statutory exemptions in
5 U.S.C. § 552(b) with regard to request Numbers 833 and 946. The agency bears the
burden of sustaining its action to withhold information under any of the FOIA exemptions.
Zaid v. Dep’t of Just., 96 F.4th 697, 704 (4th Cir. 2024) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B));

3

see Malone v. U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., 175 F.4th 262, 269 (4th Cir. 2026) (same).
Here, the district court determined that the exemption in § 552(b)(5) applied to request
Number 946 and that the exemptions in § 552(b)(5)-(7) applied to request Number 833.
But the NETL did not argue on remand that these exemptions applied to the respective
requests and, therefore, did not meet its burden.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for the district court to
determine, after further briefing from the parties, whether the exemptions apply to request
Numbers 833 and 946. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED