Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. et al v. Wright et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_____________________________________
)
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC.; 	)
AND UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
v. 	)
)
CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT, in his 	)
official capacity as Secretary of 	) 	CIVIL ACTION NO.
Energy; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 	) 	25-12249-WGY
OF ENERGY; LEE ZELDIN in his 	)
official capacity as 	)
Administrator of the U.S. 	)
Environmental Protection Agency; 	)
CLIMATE WORKING GROUP; and UNITED 	)
STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 	)
AGENCY, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
_____________________________________)
YOUNG, D.J. 	January 23, 2026
ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
The Plaintiffs, Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. and the
Union of Concerned Scientists (“the Plaintiffs”), filed a Motion
to Compel Disclosure of FACA Records Improperly Withheld. 	ECF
No. 87. 	The Defendants filed a Memorandum in Opposition (“Mem.
Opp’n”), ECF No. 91, and the Court heard argument on the matter
on January 21, 2026. 	Electronic Clerk’s Notes, ECF No. 95. 	At
the hearing, the Court ruled orally on the applicability of the
Case 1:25-cv-12249-WGY Document 97 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 6

[2]
Deliberative Process Privilege and took argument on Exemption 6
under advisement. 	Id. 	For the reasons stated below, the Motion
is GRANTED in part and is otherwise DENIED.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”) provides for
disclosure of committee materials, subject to the exceptions
enumerated in 5 U.S.C. § 552. 	See 5 U.S.C. § 1009(b). 	The
Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552,
allows agencies to withhold “personnel and medical files and
similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 	5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6)
(“Exemption 6”). 	Here, the Plaintiffs argue that nineteen
records were partially withheld in improper reliance on
Exemption 6. 	See Mem. Supp. Mot. Compel 3, ECF No. 88. 	The
Defendants argue in response that the personal information of
reviewers of the Climate Working Group report is properly
withheld under Exemption 6. 	See Mem. Opp’n 16.
This Court now rules that the emails (all nineteen disputed
documents are emails, see Ex. 6, ECF No. 89-6) authored by
Climate Working Group members shall be disclosed in their
entirety, with the names of the reviewers of the draft report
disclosed. 	The reviewers’ personal information – including
email addresses, physical addresses, titles, dates of birth,
etc. – may properly continue to be withheld under Exemption 6.
See U.S. Dep't of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595,
Case 1:25-cv-12249-WGY Document 97 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 6

[3]
600, 602 (1982) (“Information such as place of birth, date of
birth, date of marriage, employment history, and comparable data
is not normally regarded as highly personal,” yet Exemption 6
applies to “Government records on an individual which can be
identified as applying to that individual.”)
This Court adopts the reasoning of the D.C. Circuit and
proceeds to weigh any “privacy interest in non-disclosure
against the public interest in the release of the records in
order to determine whether, on balance, disclosure would work a
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 	Lepelletier
v. FDIC, 164 F.3d 37, 46 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (quoting Nat'l Ass'n
of Retired Fed. Emps. v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873, 874 (D.C. Cir.
1989)).
In this case, the privacy interest in non-disclosure only
of names is not substantial. 	There is no evidence in the record
that physical, reputational, or financial harm shall befall the
reviewers. 	Cf. Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin., 449 F.3d
141, 153 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (in which the court cited evidence of
“abortion clinic bombings,” websites encouraging readers to
“kill or kidnap employees,” and “the danger of abortion-related
violence” as relevant privacy interests); Mountgordon v. United
States Coast Guard, 691 F. Supp. 3d 72, 92 (D.D.C. 2023) (in
which the requested names involved allegations of bullying and
workplace misconduct, which would result in reputational harm
Case 1:25-cv-12249-WGY Document 97 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 6

[4]
resulting from being the subject of government investigations).
While the Defendants promised these reviewers anonymity, see
Mem. Opp’n 17, the release of their names only does not
represent a “clearly unwarranted” invasion of their personal
privacy as government employees offering scientific review of a
report in their professional capacities. 	Cf. U.S. Dep't of
State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595 (1982) (in which
personal passport information of non-government employee
individuals was requested, and the court ruled Exemption 6
applied); Stylianos v. United States Citizenship & Immigr.
Servs., 516 F. Supp. 3d 114 (D. Mass. 2021) (Talwani, J.) (in
which a personal marriage certificate was requested and the
court ruled Exemption 6 applied).
Here, the public interest served in the FACA context
warrants greater disclosure than in the ordinary FOIA context.
See Pub. Law 92-463, 86 Stat. 770 (1972). 	The FACA was
established “for the ‘principal purpose’ of ‘enhanc[ing] [their]
public accountability.’” 	Union of Concerned Scientists v.
Wheeler, 954 F.3d 11, 17 (1st Cir. 2020) (quoting Pub. Citizen
v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 491 U.S. 440, 459 (1989)). 	This Court
ruled that the Climate Working Group was not exempt from the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, and that the Group in fact gave
“advice or recommendations for a renewed approach
to climate policy” in its report. 	Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v.
Case 1:25-cv-12249-WGY Document 97 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 6

[5]
Wright, 800 F. Supp. 3d 284, 289 (D. Mass. 2025). 	Since the
Climate Working Group report was created absent compliance with
the various public disclosure requirements of the FACA, the
public did not have the opportunity to attend and participate in
the formulation of the report as required by FACA. 	See 5 U.S.C.
§ 1009(a)(1) (“Each advisory committee meeting shall be open to
the public”); 5 U.S.C. § 1009(a)(3) (“Interested persons shall
be permitted to attend, appear before, or file statements with
any advisory committee, subject to such reasonable rules or
regulations as the Administrator may prescribe.”)
Because the public lacked this opportunity to participate
in the advisory committee process until after the report had
been published, the various factors that the Climate Working
Group members considered in drafting the report represent a
compelling public interest. 	This includes the names of the
individuals that the Committee members considered to review the
draft prior to publication. 	Cf. Nova Oculus Partners, LLC v.
SEC, 486 F. Supp. 3d 280, 290 (D.D.C. 2020) (in which the court
ruled Exemption 6 applied to government employee identities when
the employees worked on a single FOIA request for the Plaintiff
on a matter of little public interest).
The Defendants’ citations to Washington Post Co. v. Special
Inspector Gen. for Afg. Reconstruction, 486 F. Supp. 3d 141
(D.D.C. 2020) and Ryan v. Dep't of Just., 617 F.2d 781 (D.C.
Case 1:25-cv-12249-WGY Document 97 Filed 01/23/26 Page 5 of 6

[6]
Cir. 1980) are inapposite, as those courts expressly did not
decide either case under the auspices of Exemption 6. 	In Ryan,
the D.C. Circuit ruled the Exemption 6 issue improperly raised
on appeal, 617 F.2d at 792, and in Special Inspector the
district court completed its analysis exclusively under
Exemption 7(c). 486 F. Supp. 3d at 162 n.11.
Accordingly, the Motion to Compel as to the applicability
of Exemption 6 is GRANTED in part as to the names only of the
reviewers considered by the Committee members, and is otherwise
DENIED. 	The Defendants shall produce the described information
no later than January 28, 2026.
SO ORDERED.
____________________
WILLIAM G. YOUNG
JUDGE
of the
UNITED STATES1
1 This is how my predecessor, Peleg Sprague (D. Mass 1841-
1865), would sign official documents. Now that I’m a Senior
District Judge I adopt this format in honor of all the judicial
colleagues, state and federal, with whom I have had the
privilege to serve over the past 47 years.
/s/ William G. Young
Case 1:25-cv-12249-WGY Document 97 Filed 01/23/26 Page 6 of 6