December 16, 2025
SENT BY EMAIL
XXXX
Re: 2026-APP-00001 (Appeal of Response 2026-FOIA-00001)
Dear XXXX:
On October 16, 2025, you submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)/Privacy Act (PA) request (2026-FOIA-00001) to the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) requesting “all documents and correspondence related to case numbers 00256795, 00257650, 00257585.”
By letter of November 14, 2025, the NCUA FOIA Processing Center (FOIA Office) granted your FOIA/PA request in part. Sixty-eight (68) pages were released to you in full and one (1) page was released with partial redactions. One (1) page was withheld in full. The FOIA Office explained that these documents represent all records responsive to your request and information was redacted or withheld pursuant to the FOIA exemptions at 5 U.S.C. §552 (b)(4) (Exemption 4) and (b)(8) (Exemption 8). Exemption 4 protects from disclosure records related to trade secrets and other confidential business information. Exemption 8 protects from disclosure records relating to the examination of banks and other financial institutions by agencies that regulate or supervise them. The FOIA Office also explained that, in determining whether to withhold information, the NCUA determined that the harm from disclosure is reasonably foreseeable.1
You appealed this determination in a correspondence received on November 18, 2025. In your appeal, you state that you were “VERY clear [about] EXACTLY what [you] were looking for.” However, you contend that the response you received “purposely neglected” what you are seeking and provided you with “a bunch of non relevant information.” You indicate you are specifically seeking “a letter [from your credit union] stating that ‘[you] have made erroneous claims in the past.’” Your appeal does not challenge the applicability of the FOIA exemptions cited in the response but argues generally that you are legally entitled to the requested letter.
Upon a full and independent review, your appeal is granted in part and denied in part, as discussed more fully below.
Exemption 4
Exemption 4 is intended to protect the interests of both the government and submitters of information.2 This exemption covers two categories of information in agency records: (1) trade secrets; and (2) commercial or financial information obtained from a person that is privileged or confidential.3 As a general rule, records are typically found to be commercial if they “reveal basic commercial operations, such as sales statistics, profits and losses, and inventories, or relate to the income producing aspects of a business.”4
One court considered whether customer complaints submitted to a company, and the company’s internal analysis of those customer complaints, were “commercial” information within the scope of Exemption 4. While the court noted that a company’s internal analysis of customer complaints “could qualify” as commercial information,5 it nevertheless rejected the broad proposition that “any interaction between a company and its customers is necessarily commercial information.”6 The court reasoned that it is “not the bare interaction between a company and its customer that makes the interaction commercial; the interaction is commercial because of what it reveals about the company’s internal operations or income-producing activities.”7
In this case, the redacted information does not qualify as commercial information within the scope of Exemption 4. The responsive record contains information about a member (customer) complaint submitted to a credit union and the credit union’s internal analysis of that complaint. The redacted information concerns interactions between a credit union and its member, which “could” qualify as commercial information under certain circumstances. Here, however, the redacted information does not qualify because the interaction reveals little or nothing about the credit union’s internal operations or income-producing activities. Accordingly, the information is not commercial information protected from disclosure under Exemption 4.
For these reasons, your FOIA/PA appeal is granted in part and denied in part. One (1) page of the responsive records is being released to you in its entirety, without redactions. However, one (1) page remains withheld in full pursuant to Exemption 8. Exemption 8 provides for protection against release of information contained in or related to examination, operating or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions.8 Courts have interpreted Exemption 8 broadly and have declined to restrict its all-inclusive scope.9 The information you requested meets this broad standard. Thus, the use of Exemption 8 to withhold one remaining page is affirmed.
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://ogis.archives.gov
Telephone: 202-741-5770; Toll-free: 877-684-6448
Fax: 202-741-5769
Sincerely,
/s/
Frank Kressman
General Counsel
GC/PY
2026-APP-00001; 2026-FOIA-00001
Footnotes
1 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A)(i).
2 See Food Mktg. Inst. v. Argus Leader Media, 588 U.S. 427, 440 (2019). Pursuant to Executive Order 12600 (June 23, 1987) and 12 C.F.R. § 792.29, the FOIA Office conducted the submitter notice process for this FOIA/PA request.
3 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4).
4 New York Times Co. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 529 F. Supp. 3d 260, 275 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (citing Plumbers & Gasfitters Loc. Union No. 1 v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, No. 10-CV-4882, 2011 WL 5117577, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2011) (citation omitted)).
5 New York Times Co. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 529 F. Supp. 3d at 280.
6 Id. at 277.
7 Id.
8 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(8).
9 See Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. Heimann, 589 F. 2d 531 (D.C. Cir. 1978).