July 16, 2026
SENT BY EMAIL
XXXX
Re: 2026-APP-00009 (Appeal of Response 2026-FOI-146)
Dear XXXX:
On May 3, 2026, you submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (2026-FOI-146) to the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). You requested the following records related to XXXX Federal Credit Union, XXXX, XXXX (liquidated XXXX):
- All examination reports and examination-related correspondence for the credit union from January 2014 through the date of liquidation on XXXX.
- The credit union's original charter documents and any subsequent amendments to the charter.
- All records related to the liquidation of the credit union on XXXX, including but not limited to the liquidation order, the purchase and assumption agreement with XXXX Federal Credit Union, member notification documents, asset transfer records, and any post-liquidation reports or assessments.
- Any NCUA correspondence with credit union management or the board of directors from January 2017 through XXXX, including letters of understanding, cease-and-desist orders, or other supervisory actions.
- Call Report (Form 5300) filings submitted by the credit union for all available quarters from 2014 through the final filing prior to liquidation.
By letter of June 17, 2026, the NCUA FOIA Processing Center (FOIA Office) granted your request in part. 254 pages of records responsive to parts 2 and 3 of your request were released to you. 65 pages were released in full and 189 pages were released with partial redactions. Information was redacted pursuant to FOIA exemptions 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(4) (Exemption 4), (b)(6) (Exemption 6), and (b)(8) (Exemption 8). Additionally, the FOIA Office explained that all records responsive to part 5 of your request for Call Report (Form 5300) records are available at https://mapping.ncua.gov/CreditUnionDetails/16119.
You appealed this determination in a correspondence received on June 22, 2026. In your appeal, you note that you are not challenging the withholding of the substantive supervisory findings, analysis, and examination conclusions that Exemption 8 is intended to protect. You contend, however, that those records may not be withheld in full where reasonably segregable, non-exempt information exists.
Upon a full and independent review, your appeal is denied, as discussed more fully below.
Reasonably Segregable
If an agency determines that it cannot or should not make full disclosure of a requested record, the FOIA calls for the agency to “consider whether partial disclosure of information is possible” and “take reasonable steps necessary to segregate and release nonexempt information.”1 However, NCUA is not required to disclose information “inextricably intertwined with exempt portions,”2 and “need not disclose a redacted version of [a record] if the unredacted markings would have minimal or no information content.”3
Your appeal states that you are specifically seeking the identity of the NCUA examiner or examiners of record assigned to XXXX Federal Credit Union (Charter XXXX) during the period covered by the request, together with the names, titles, and signature or transmittal information of any supervisory examiner or regional official who signed or transmitted the related supervisory correspondence. You argue that the identity of the assigned examiner is administrative information that identifies who carried out the agency's supervision of this institution. You contend this information is distinct from the examination's substantive findings, and it is segregable from any exempt information. Further, you assert that the appearance of a name within a document withheld under Exemption 8 does not render the name itself exempt, and the agency has not shown that releasing the examiner's identity, separated from the substantive content, would reveal any examination finding, conclusion, or technique. As such, you are requesting the release of the identity of examiner-of-record and the identifying portions of the withheld supervisory correspondence, including names, titles, signature blocks, and transmittal headers, with the substantive examination content redacted as necessary.
Any information regarding the identity of the NCUA examiner or examiners of record assigned to XXXX Federal Credit Union during the requested time period is exempt under Exemption 6. While the substantive content of the examination records is undisputedly exempt under Exemption 8, certain personally identifiable information (PII) contained within those records is also exempt, under Exemption 6. See the discussion below for further details.
After careful review, there are no reasonably segregable portions of the agency’s responsive records that can be additionally disclosed without causing reasonably foreseeable harm to the credit union, public confidence, agency relations with supervised entities, or cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The unredacted portions of the records that were disclosed to you in response to your FOIA request consist of the reasonably segregable nonexempt portions of the agency’s responsive records. The requested records that were redacted or withheld are fully exempt under one or more of Exemptions 4, 6, or 8, or inextricably intertwined with exempt portions of the records. Accordingly, the requested examiner information was properly redacted or withheld as fully exempt pursuant to one or more FOIA exemptions.
Exemption 6
Your appeal argues that, to the extent the agency relies on Exemption 6 to withhold the examiner's identity on personal-privacy grounds, any such interest is minimal and is outweighed by a substantial and concrete public interest.
Under the FOIA, Exemption 6 protects information about individuals in “personnel and medical files and similar files” when the disclosure of such information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.4 Determining whether information warrants protection under Exemption 6 requires a four-step analysis: (1) determine whether the information is a personnel, medical, or “similar” file;5 (2) determine whether there is a significant privacy interest in the requested information;6 (3) evaluate the requester’s asserted FOIA public interest in disclosure;7 and (4) if there is a significant privacy interest in non-disclosure and a FOIA public interest in disclosure, balance those competing interests to determine whether disclosure “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”8
Exemption 6 is interpreted broadly, and all information that “applies to a particular individual” meets the threshold requirement of falling within the category of “personnel and medical files and similar files” to warrant protection under Exemption 6.9 Here, the threshold requirement is satisfied. The requested records include personally identifiable information (PII) that applies to government employees. PII, including names, phone numbers, and email addresses, has been found to implicate a substantial privacy interest cognizable under the FOIA.10
Since a substantial privacy interest may be infringed by the disclosure of the requested PII, the next steps of the analysis require an assessment of the asserted public interest followed by a “balancing of the public interest served by disclosure against the harm resulting from the invasion of privacy.”11 When the disclosure of requested information could result in the invasion of personal privacy, the burden is on the requester to establish that disclosure would serve a public interest.12 The only relevant public interest in disclosure is the extent to which disclosure would serve the “core purpose of the FOIA,” which is “contributing significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government.”13 Thus, "[w]hether the public has an interest in the identity of federal workers… depends on… whether the information sought sheds light on government activity."14 "In many contexts, federal courts have observed that disclosure of individual employee names tells nothing about 'what the government is up to.'"15 Accordingly, "where public interest favoring disclosure is no more than minimal, a lesser privacy interest suffices to outweigh it."16
Your appeal notes that XXXX Federal Credit Union was liquidated in XXXX due to insolvency. You contend the public has a recognized interest in understanding how NCUA supervised a federally insured institution that failed while under the agency's oversight. You assert that the identity of the assigned examiner reflects the performance of an official government function and the privacy interest in the examiner’s identity is therefore slight and does not outweigh the public's interest in understanding the agency's supervision of this liquidated institution. Additionally, you note that you are a journalist producing a documentary examination of this institution's failure for public distribution, and the information sought will be used to inform the public about the conduct of a federal agency's supervisory function. You argue that this dissemination purpose reinforces the public interest in disclosure of the requested information.
Courts have found that “persons who have placed themselves in the public light . . . have a significantly diminished privacy interest than others.”17 However, although “[a] government employee’s privacy interest may be diminished by virtue of his government service, . . . he retains an interest nonetheless.”18 If the information sought relates to a government employee, “the level of responsibility held by [the] federal employee,” as well as the activity involved, are appropriate considerations for determining the extent of the public’s interest in knowing the identity of that employee.19 Generally, lower level officials are afforded a greater level of personal privacy interest than more senior officials.20 Thus, while “[t]he privacy interests of U.S. government officials might be ‘somewhat diminished’ due to the countervailing interest of the public ‘to be informed about what their government is up to,’ federal employees nonetheless maintain an identifiable privacy interest in avoiding disclosures of information that could lead to annoyance or harassment.”21 For example, the identities of federal employees may be withheld when personnel are working on sensitive matters or associated with unpopular agency action and release would subject them to harassment or harm.22 Such harassment does not have to rise to the level that life or physical safety is in danger.23
Here, on balance, the personal privacy interest outweighs the public interest. You are seeking PII and other information about the identity of the examiner or examiners assigned to XXXX Federal Credit Union, a liquidated credit union. Examiners are generally lower-level agency officials with a greater level of personal privacy interest than more senior officials.24 Further, in this context, publicly identifying individual examiners tells nothing about what the government is up to. NCUA’s risk-focused supervision of federal credit unions is a team effort, typically involving the collaboration of multiple personnel. This includes, for example, an Examiner-in-Charge who oversees the examination process; field examiners responsible for on-site reviews; Supervisory Examiners and District Examiners who offer oversight and guidance; Subject Matter Experts and regional specialists providing specialized expertise; as well as regional management and central office staff who facilitate broader supervisory efforts.25 Also, supervision and examination team assignments may change over time due to staff rotations, evolving supervisory priorities, or the need for specialized expertise. Liquidations of insolvent credit unions involve additional personnel, including NCUA’s Asset Management and Assistance Center (AMAC) staff and others. Therefore, revealing the identity of the examiner or examiners assigned to XXXX Federal Credit Union during the specified period would offer only limited and incomplete insight into how the agency supervises credit unions and adds little to understanding NCUA’s oversight of this particular credit union.
Furthermore, winding down a federal credit union is a sensitive matter involving complex considerations, and the choices made by the agency may not always be well received. Disclosing the names of examiners assigned to a failed institution may expose those individuals to unnecessary annoyance or harassment. Your indication that the identifying information sought will be publicly disseminated in a documentary examination of the credit union’s failure supports the public interest, but, on balance, weighs more heavily in favor of the examiner’s personal privacy interest.
After careful consideration, overall, the public interest in NCUA’s oversight of a liquidated credit union is outweighed by the personal privacy interest of individual examination staff. Accordingly, the use of Exemption 6 to withhold examiner identities is affirmed.
For these reasons, your FOIA appeal is denied. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(B) of the FOIA, you may seek judicial review of this determination by filing suit against the NCUA. Such a suit may be filed in the United States District Court where you reside, where your principal place of business is located, the District of Columbia, or where the documents are located (the Eastern District of Virginia).
The 2007 FOIA amendments created the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) to offer mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. Using OGIS services does not affect your right to pursue litigation. You may contact OGIS in any of the following ways:
Office of Government Information Services
National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road - OGIS
College Park, MD 20740-6001
E-mail: ogis@nara.gov
Web: https://www.archives.gov/ogis
Telephone: 202.741.5770
Toll-free: 877.684.6448
Fax: 202.741.5769
Sincerely,
/s/
Frank Kressman
General Counsel
OGC/PY
SSIC: 3212
2026-APP-00009; 2026-FOI-146
Footnotes
15 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A)(ii).
2Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 260 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
3Perioperative Servs. & Logistics, LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 57 F.4th 1061, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (citing Mead Data Center, Inc. v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 261 n.55 (D.C. Cir. 1977)).
45 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6).
5Id.
6See Multi Ag Media LLC v. USDA, 515 F.3d 1224, 1229 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
7See NARA v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 172 (2004).
85 U.S.C. §552(b)(6); see also Favish, 541 U.S. 157 at 172.
9U.S. Dep’t of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595, 602 (1982).
10See, e.g., Wadhwa v. VA, 707 F. App’x 61, 63-64 (3d Cir. 2017) (protecting personally identifiable information, including names, phone numbers, and email addresses, concerning individuals involved in adjudication of discrimination complaints in absence of any FOIA public interest); Maryland v. VA, 130 F. Supp. 3d 342, 353 (D.D.C. 2015) (protecting identifying portions of email addresses of individuals whose businesses were not selected for inclusion in small business database because public interest in such information was “practically nonexistent”).
11Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local Union No. 5 v. HUD, 852 F.2d 87, 89 (3d Cir. 1988).
12See NARA v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004).
13Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n, Local Union No. 19 v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 135 F.3d 891, 897 (3d Cir. 1998) (citing U.S. Dep’t of Defense et al. v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 510 U.S. 487, 495–496 (1994)); see also Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 372 (1976) (noting information that serves the “basic purpose” of the FOIA to “open agency action to the light of public scrutiny” constitutes a FOIA public interest in disclosure).
14Long v. OPM, No. 10-1600, 2012 WL 3831784 (2d Cir. Sept. 5, 2012) (rejecting the notion that "federal employees' interest in their names is '[m]inimal or [n]on-[e]xistent' and cannot outweigh the public interest in disclosure," observing that "[t]he analysis is context specific.")
15Id.
16Id.
17Rosenfeld v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. C-07-3240 EMC, 2012 WL 710186 at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2012).
18Lewis v. DOJ, 867 F. Supp. 2d 1, 21 (D.D.C. 2011); Keys v. DHS, 570 F. Supp. 2d 59, 68 (D.D.C. 2008)
(stating that “‘[o]ne who serves his state or nation as a career public servant is not thereby stripped of every vestige of personal privacy, even with respect to the discharge of his official duties. Public identification of any of these individuals could conceivably subject them to harassment and annoyance in the conduct of their official duties and in their private lives’” (quoting Nix v. United States, 572 F.2d 998, 1006 (4th Cir. 1978)); Waterman v. IRS, 288 F. Supp. 3d 206, 211 (D.D.C. 2018)(holding that work telephone numbers and email addresses of IRS employees could be withheld because such information sheds little light on agency activities and release could cause harassment or threats of employees).
19Stern v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 737 F.2d 84, 92 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
20Forest Serv. Emps. for Envt’l Ethics v. U.S. Forest Serv., 524 F.3d 1021, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Dobronski v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 17 F.3d 275, 280 n.4 (9th Cir. 1994)).
21Fams. for Freedom v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 797 F. Supp. 2d 375, 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing Cawthon v. United States Dep't of Justice, No. 05–0567, 2006 WL 581250, at *3 (D.D.C. Mar. 9, 2006); Lesar v. U .S. Dep't of Justice, 636 F.2d 472, 487 (D.C.Cir.1980) (the privacy interest of civilian federal employees includes the right to control information related to themselves and to avoid disclosures that “could conceivably subject them to annoyance or harassment in either their official or private lives.”); see also Cause of Action Inst. v. Exp.-Imp. Bank of the U.S., 521 F. Supp. 3d 64, 94 (D.D.C. 2021) (holding that email addresses of high-ranking personnel from the Executive Office of the President were properly withheld (quoting Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. DHS, 384 F. Supp. 2d 100, 116 (D.D.C. 2005))).
22See Civ. Beat L. Ctr. for the Pub. Int., Inc. v. CDC, 929 F.3d 1079, 1092 (9th Cir. 2019) (upholding protection of identities and contact information of CDC employees because they could face harassment or threats); Jud. Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F.3d 141, 153 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (holding that HHS employees named in requested records were properly protected pursuant to Exemption 6 to ensure employees’ safety); Reps. Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. CBP, 567 F. Supp. 3d at 125 (“[I]ndividuals associated with an unpopular agency action might be subject to public scrutiny and perhaps harassment.”) (Exemption 7(C)); Seife v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 366 F. Supp. 3d 592, 610-11 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (agreeing with agency that disclosure of the names of Department of State employees could impact their personal safety); Pubien v. EOUSA, No. 18-0172, 2018 WL 5923917, at *5 (D.D.C. Nov. 13, 2018) (protecting identities of individuals working at District Court and U.S. Attorney’s Office to protect personnel from harassment or harm).
23See Nix v. United States, 572 F.2d 998, 1006 n. 8 (4th Cir.1978).
24By contrast, the identities of more senior-level agency officials appearing in the responsive records were not withheld and fully released to you with no redactions.
25Additional information about NCUA’s Examination and Supervision Program may be found in the National Supervision Policy Manual, available online at https://ncua.gov/files/publications/guides-manuals/national-supervision-policy-manual.pdf.