23-1005 Bloomberg L.P. v. United States Postal Service In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

August Term 2023 Argued: April 16, 2024 Decided: September 26, 2024

No. 23-1005

BLOOMBERG L.P. AND DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Before: LYNCH, PÉREZ, AND KAHN, Circuit Judges.

On appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Cote, J.).

The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) was designed to create a broad public right of access to official information held by federal agencies. Under this general statutory presumption of access, federal agencies must disclose agency records upon request unless said records fall into one of nine specific statutory exemptions. This case concerns FOIA Exemption #3, which establishes that the general FOIA disclosure requirement “does not apply to matters that are . . . specifically exempted from disclosure by statute . . . if that statute . . . establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld.”

(b)(3)(A)(ii). The withholding statute relevant to this case is the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 (the “Postal Reorganization Act”), specifically a provision allowing the United States Postal Service (“USPS” or “Postal Service”) to withhold production of “information of a commercial nature.”

(c)(2).

Appellants in this case are the publishers of two media outlets that produce reporting on economics and urban policy trends—CityLab and The Wall Street Journal. Reporters from each outlet sought disclosure of aggregated, anonymized change-of-address (“COA”) data collected by USPS that they wish to use to produce reporting about movement trends in the United States. USPS denied the FOIA requests at issue, citing FOIA Exemption #3 and asserting that the data was protected as “information of a commercial nature” because it intended to incorporate the data into a commercial product called “Population Mobility Trends.” The district court granted summary judgment to USPS. Because we agree that USPS has satisfied its burden of demonstrating that the requested COA data is protected as “information of a commercial nature” pursuant to the Postal Reorganization Act and FOIA Exemption #3, we affirm.

AFFIRMED. Judge Kahn concurs and dissents in a separate opinion.

2 ADAM A. MARSHALL (Katie Townsend, on the brief), Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

TOMOKO ONOZAWA (Benjamin Torrance, on the brief) for Damian Williams, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.

MYRNA PÉREZ, Circuit Judge:

The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) generally requires federal

agencies to produce any document considered an agency record “upon any

request” by a member of the public.

(a)(3)(A). FOIA was “designed

to create a broad right of access to ‘official information.’” U.S. Dep’t of Justice v.

Reps. Comm. for Freedom of Press,

(1989) (quoting EPA v. Mink,

(1973)). Under this general statutory presumption of access, federal

agencies must disclose agency records upon request unless said records fall into

one of nine specific statutory exemptions. See

(b)(1)–(9). Most cases

about FOIA exemptions require a reviewing court to consider the detailed factual

contents of a specific set of documents and determine whether disclosure of said

documents would infringe on an interest protected by one of the FOIA

3 exemptions, such as national security under Exemption #1,

§ 552(b)(1), or

personal privacy under Exemption #6, id. § 552(b)(6).

This case concerns an exemption of a different kind—FOIA Exemption #3,

which establishes that the general FOIA disclosure requirement “does not apply

to matters that are . . . specifically exempted from disclosure by statute . . . if that

statute . . . establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular

types of matters to be withheld.” Id. § 552(b)(3)(A)(ii). The withholding statute

relevant to this case is the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 (the “Postal

Reorganization Act”), specifically a provision allowing the United States Postal

Service (“USPS” or “Postal Service”) to withhold production of “information of a

commercial nature.”

(c)(2).

Appellants in this case, Bloomberg L.P. (“Bloomberg”) and Dow Jones &

Company, Inc. (“Dow Jones”), are the publishers of two media outlets that

produce reporting on economics and urban policy trends—CityLab, published by

Bloomberg, and The Wall Street Journal, published by Dow Jones. Appellants

sought disclosure of aggregated, anonymized change-of-address (“COA”) data

collected by USPS that they wish to use to produce reporting about population

4 movement trends in the United States. Reporters from each outlet had requested

and received similar COA records previously.

USPS denied the FOIA requests at issue, citing FOIA Exemption #3 and

asserting that the data was protected as “information of a commercial nature”

because it intended to incorporate the data into a commercial product called

“Population Mobility Trends.” The district court granted summary judgment to

USPS. Because we agree that USPS has satisfied its burden of demonstrating that

the requested COA data is protected as “information of a commercial nature”

pursuant to the Postal Reorganization Act and FOIA Exemption #3, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The events of this case began in 2021, when reporters from Bloomberg and

Dow Jones writing for CityLab and The Wall Street Journal made separate FOIA

requests for COA data for specific time periods during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Bloomberg’s reporters requested data reflecting the net flow of population

between specific zip codes for December 2020, and Dow Jones’s reporters

requested similar data for the first six months of 2021. USPS had fulfilled similar

requests from both publications in the past. The reporters intended to use this

data to support their reporting about population movement trends during the

5 pandemic. USPS denied Dow Jones’s request on September 17, 2021, and

Bloomberg’s request on April 19, 2021, stating that the requested data was “under

development for a commercial product.” J. App’x at 45, 59.

A. COA Data and Appellants’ Data Reporting

When individuals, families, or businesses move to a new address, either

permanently or temporarily, they can notify USPS and have their mail forwarded

to the new address using an online or mail-in COA request. USPS retains data

from these requests for a four-year period, after which it is permanently deleted.

As will be discussed below, at various points in time and in various ways, USPS

has made certain COA data available to the public in aggregated, anonymized

datasets.

COA data is neither perfectly accurate nor the only source of information

about population and movement trends. However, it provides a spotlight into

how our country is changing that some find interesting and useful. As relevant to

this case, data journalists from CityLab and The Wall Street Journal used COA data

to produce journalistic products about movement trends during and because of

the Covid-19 pandemic. See, e.g., Marie Patino et al., More Americans Are Leaving

Cities, But Don’t Call It an Urban Exodus, Bloomberg (Apr. 26, 2021),

6 https://bloom.bg/3M7fu05 [https://perma.cc/D5P7-TGD8]; Yan Wu & Luis Melgar,

Americans Up and Moved During the Pandemic. Here’s Where They Went., Wall St. J.

(May 11, 2021), https://on.wsj.com/3NgWCx2 [https://perma.cc/3QWU-HRA9].

B. Access to COA Data, Historically and Today

Historically, USPS published some generalized COA data online for free,

and allowed other, more specific forms of COA data to be produced in response

to FOIA requests. USPS’s “Frequently Requested Records” page allows anyone to

download spreadsheets of COA data from 2018 through June of 2023 that provide

the total number of COA filings into and out of each ZIP code in the United States

for each calendar year. See Frequently Requested Records: Change of Address Stats,

USPS FOIA Library, https://about.usps.com/who/legal/foia/library.htm

[https://perma.cc/T8M7-XQ63] (last visited Aug. 14, 2024). This publicly available

data does not allow a viewer to determine how many individuals or families

moved out of any specific ZIP code into another specific ZIP code. Anyone seeking

that type of data would need to request it through FOIA—which reporters from

CityLab and The Wall Street Journal had done, successfully, on more than one

occasion. See J. App’x at 115, 128.

7 The availability of COA data changed when USPS began developing

Population Mobility Trends, the “commercial product” USPS referenced in its

decisions to deny the two FOIA requests relevant to this case. Population Mobility

Trends is a “tabular dataset built upon aggregated USPS National Change of

Address data and 2020 Census demographics” that provides certain COA and

Census data for a 48-month period and is updated monthly. J. App’x at 141. Any

individual or organization may purchase a Population Mobility Trends license,

but the licensing costs range from $91,000 for a limited amount of data from a 12-

month window to $277,000 for an “Enterprise” level of data from the full 48-month

window. See J. App’x at 161. Purchasers must also sign a “Data License

Agreement” that contains certain restrictions on public disclosure of the

underlying data that Appellants contend could make the data less useful for public

reporting projects.

The data available through Population Mobility Trends is both over- and

under-inclusive of the data previously available through FOIA requests. By

incorporating Census data and other anonymized data collected through COA

requests, Population Mobility Trends provides users with information about the

demographic characteristics of individuals and families moving between specific

8 ZIP codes, including age, household size, and income. However, for any given

ZIP code, Population Mobility Trends provides data about movement to only nine

other ZIP codes—the top three destinations within the same county, the top three

destinations in other counties within the same state, and the top three destinations

outside the state. Population Mobility Trends also provides no information about

ZIP codes with fewer than 11 total COA requests within the past calendar year.

Data about movement between many specific ZIP codes is thus now unavailable,

through either Population Mobility Trends or FOIA. USPS also ended its practice

of providing more generalized COA data on its website in June 2023. Population

Mobility Trends is now the only way to access aggregated, anonymized COA data

in any large-scale, usable format.

C. Procedural History

As referenced above, a Wall Street Journal reporter submitted Dow Jones’s

relevant FOIA request on September 15, 2021, which USPS denied in a timely

manner on September 17, 2021. Dow Jones filed an administrative appeal, which

the USPS General Counsel’s Office denied on December 9, 2021. A City Lab

reporter submitted Bloomberg’s relevant FOIA request in March 2021, which

USPS denied in a timely manner on April 19, 2021. Bloomberg similarly filed an

9 administrative appeal, which the USPS General Counsel’s Office denied on July

29, 2021.

Appellants initiated this consolidated lawsuit on July 18, 2022, seeking

declaratory relief and an order directing USPS to immediately disclose the

responsive records. As in most FOIA cases, the parties cross-moved for summary

judgment. See Seife v. U.S. FDA,

(2d Cir. 2022) (“FOIA cases are

often resolved by summary judgment.”). The key evidence before the district

court included declarations by Jeffrey Tackes, the Director of Digital Business

Services at USPS, and by Marie Patino and Paul Overberg, the reporters who filed

the FOIA requests. The district court granted summary judgment to USPS in an

opinion and order dated June 13, 2023, and the judgment was entered the next day.

Appellants then filed a timely notice of appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review orders granting summary judgment in FOIA cases de novo. N.Y.

Times Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum Servs.,

(2d Cir. 2021). The

agency, in this case the Postal Service, bears the burden of proof, with “doubts

resolved in favor of disclosure.” A. Michael’s Piano, Inc. v. FTC,

(2d

Cir. 1994). The agency can satisfy this burden by providing “[a]ffidavits or

10 declarations . . . giving reasonably detailed explanations why any withheld

documents fall within an exemption.” Carney v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

(2d Cir. 1994). “[T]he agency’s justification is sufficient if it appears logical

and plausible.” ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Def.,

(2d Cir. 2018).

DISCUSSION

We affirm the order and judgment of the district court. USPS has satisfied

its burden of establishing that the requested COA data is “information of a

commercial nature” that would not be disclosed under good business practices

and may be withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemption #3 and the Postal

Reorganization Act. In today’s information economy, user and location

intelligence, such as the COA data, undoubtedly has commercial value. And while

merely having value is insufficient to make the requested documents “of a

commercial nature,” the COA data was part of a specific commercial product

derived from USPS’s primary line of business—delivering the mail.

I. Relevant Law

This case involves two major federal statutes: FOIA,

, and the

Postal Reorganization Act,

et seq. FOIA was enacted to “keep[]

citizens in the know about their government.” What is FOIA?, FOIA.gov,

11 https://www.foia.gov/about.html [https://perma.cc/S3J6-7XK2] (last visited Aug.

14, 2024). The Postal Reorganization Act was enacted to “improve and modernize

the postal service” and enable one of our oldest and most important governmental

institutions to adapt to a growing economy. Postal Reorganization Act,

Stat. 719 (1970). This case concerns the interaction of these two

statutes through FOIA Exemption #3, which establishes that FOIA’s agency

records disclosure requirement “does not apply to matters that are . . . specifically

exempted from disclosure by statute . . . if that statute . . . establishes particular

criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld.”

(b)(3)(A)(ii).

A. Public Access to Information and the Freedom of Information Act

FOIA was enacted “to facilitate public access to Government documents”

and is “premised on ‘a policy strongly favoring public disclosure of information

in possession of federal agencies.’” Jabar v. U.S. Dep’t of Just.,

(2d

Cir. 2023) (per curiam) (quoting Halpern v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation,

(2d Cir. 1999)). Indeed, “[t]he generation that made the nation thought secrecy

in government one of the instruments of Old World tyranny and committed itself

to the principle that a democracy cannot function unless the people are permitted

12 to know what their government is up to.” Mink,

(Douglas, J.,

dissenting) (citation omitted).

Accordingly, “any member of the public is entitled to have access to any

record maintained by a federal agency, unless that record is exempt from

disclosure under one of the Act’s nine exemptions.” A. Michael’s Piano,

; see also Knight First Amend. Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr.

Servs.,

, 327 (2d Cir. 2022). We interpret these nine exemptions with “a

narrow compass,” and the “limited exemptions do not obscure the basic policy

that disclosure, not secrecy, is the dominant objective of the Act.” ACLU v. CIA,

(2d Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted);

Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose,

(1976). In crafting FOIA’s nine

exemptions, Congress balanced the strong interest in government accountability

against “legitimate governmental and private interests [that] could be harmed by

release of certain types of information.” FBI v. Abramson,

(1982).

B. The U.S. Postal Service and the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970

Mail delivery through USPS is “a basic and fundamental service provided

to the people by the Government of the United States.”

(a). USPS

is one of our democracy’s oldest institutions. It is an institution that, in fact,

13 predates the Declaration of Independence—the Continental Congress appointed

Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General in 1775. See The United States

Postal Service: An American History 2 (PDF pagination) (2002),

https://about.usps.com/publications/pub100.pdf [https://perma.cc/FYE4-87S5].

“Our founding fathers knew that a robust, reliable, and secure means of

exchanging information was critical to unify the distant parts of our nation.”

And although many things have changed, “the Postal Service’s historic mission

remains the same—to provide all Americans, in all areas and communities, with

access to prompt, reliable, and efficient services.”

USPS, including the men and women who make up its workforce, is also

one of our country’s most cherished institutions. A 2023 Gallup poll indicated that

77% of the American public views USPS favorably. See Public Service Means Public

Input, American Postal Workers Union (Jan. 8, 2024),

https://apwu.org/news/magazine/public-service-means-public-input

[https://perma.cc/3VXW-7GRC]. “As the eyes and ears of the neighborhoods they

serve, Postal Service employees go the extra mile for customers and communities

every day and are highly committed to their role as public servants.” Committed

to Public Service, U.S. Postal Serv., https://about.usps.com/publications/annual-

14 report-comprehensive-statement-2014/ar2014/annualreport2014 tech 006.htm

[https://perma.cc/V44V-FR3Y].

As the Postal Service grew larger over time, Congress recognized that the

agency had become “heavily overburdened and in deep trouble” due to large

agency budget deficits. H.R. Rep. No. 91-1104, at 4–5 (1970). The Postal

Reorganization Act, codified at

et seq., allowed the Postal Service

to modernize and survive in a growing economy.

Through the Postal Reorganization Act, Congress deemed it “essential” that

the postal agency become “self-supporting” and “no longer rely on massive

annual infusions of general revenues . . . at the taxpayers’ expense.” H.R. Rep. No.

91-1104, at 17. Congress thus “transformed the Post Office Department into a

Government-owned corporation called the United States Postal Service.” USPS v.

Council of Greenburgh Civic Ass’ns.,

(1981). Congress intended to

improve and modernize “the Postal Service to be run more like a business than

had its predecessor, the Post Office Department.” Kuzma v. USPS,

(2d Cir. 1986) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. USPS,

, 519–20 (1984)).

This did not mean the newly reorganized USPS would operate like a

business in all aspects—as the Supreme Court has recognized, “[t]he Postal Service

15 has different goals, obligations, and powers from private corporations. . . . The

most important difference is that it does not seek profits, but only to break even[.]”

USPS v. Flamingo Indus. (USA) Ltd.,

(2004) (citation omitted).

What the Postal Reorganization Act did mean, though, was that USPS would not

be subject to certain federal statutes “which in most instances apply to

Government agencies and functions.” S. Rep. No. 91-912, at 5 (1970). One of the

federal laws that Congress specified would have a different applicability to the

reorganized USPS was FOIA.

C. The FOIA Exemption Relevant to this Case

As discussed above, all agency records are presumptively available under

FOIA unless they fall into one of nine statutory exemptions. This case concerns

only one of these exemptions: FOIA Exemption #3.

1. FOIA Exemption #3

FOIA Exemption #3 establishes that the general FOIA disclosure

requirement “does not apply to matters that are . . . specifically exempted from

disclosure by statute . . . if that statute . . . establishes particular criteria for

withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld.”

(b)(3)(A)(ii). To claim FOIA Exemption #3, “the government must demonstrate

16 that: ‘(1) the statute invoked qualifies as an Exemption 3 withholding statute, and

(2) the materials withheld fall within that statute’s scope.’” Spadaro v. U.S. Customs

& Border Prot.,

(2d Cir. 2020) (brackets omitted) (quoting A. Michael’s

Piano,

); see also Wilner v. Nat’l Sec. Agency,

(2d Cir.

2009).

“Exemption 3 differs from other FOIA exemptions in that its applicability

depends less on the detailed factual contents of specific documents; the sole issue

for decision is the existence of a relevant statute and the inclusion of withheld

material within the statute’s coverage.” Wilner,

(quoting Ass’n of

Retired R.R. Workers v. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd.,

(D.C. Cir. 1987)). FOIA

Exemption #3 thus “incorporates the policies” of the other statute being invoked.

A. Michael’s Piano,

.

2. The Postal Reorganization Act’s “Information of a Commercial Nature” Exemption

The withholding statute incorporated into FOIA Exemption #3 in this case

is a provision of the Postal Reorganization Act exempting USPS from FOIA

disclosure of six different categories of documents. Only one of those categories

of documents is at issue in this case: the “information of a commercial nature”

exemption. In enacting this “commercial nature” exemption, “Congress spoke

17 loudly . . . providing USPS with a broad release from many FOIA disclosure

requirements with which other agencies must comply.” Wickwire Gavin, P.C. v.

USPS,

(4th Cir. 2004).

The text of the exempting provision reads in relevant part that “[FOIA] shall

not require the disclosure of . . . information of a commercial nature, including

trade secrets, whether or not obtained from a person outside the Postal Service,

which under good business practice would not be publicly disclosed.”

(c)(2). This “information of a commercial nature” exception can be broken

down into two elements: the requested information must be “of a commercial

nature” and must be something “which under good business practice would not

be publicly disclosed.” See

1

1We caution that our analysis of this particular withholding statute should not be read as an interpretation of FOIA Exemption #4’s more generalized protection for “commercial or financial information.”

(b)(4). Both exemptions rely on the word “commercial.” FOIA Exemption #4 establishes that FOIA “does not apply to matters that are . . . trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged and confidential.”

However, the Postal Reorganization Act’s relevant withholding language contains no such qualifier about the source of the information. In fact, the Postal Reorganization Act explicitly states that it protects “information of a commercial nature . . . whether or not obtained from a person outside the Postal Service.”

(c)(2) (emphasis added). When interpreting a statute, we must “give effect, if possible, to every clause and word.” Seife,

(quoting Duncan v. Walker,

(2001)). If we are to give every word of Exemption #4 meaning, then “the confidential commercial or financial information must be obtained from a person” to be protected.

. The “contemplated harm” under Exemption #4 is to “the submitter” of commercial information.

Exemption #4 exists to protect businesses that are required to submit confidential commercial information to an agency for regulatory purposes from competitors who could otherwise seek to obtain that information through FOIA. In the case of USPS and COA data, however, no person submits commercial or financial information. Rather, the data is rendered commercial information by virtue of the Postal Service’s efforts to couple it with other demographic data. The interests protected by Exemption #4 are thus not implicated when we give effect to every word in both statutes. 18 II. Analysis

We affirm the judgment of the district court. The requested COA data is

“information of a commercial nature . . . which under good business practice

would not be publicly disclosed.” See

The requested COA data is a valuable

monetizable commodity generated as part of USPS’s core “commercial” activity—

the delivery of the mail. Pursuant to its statutory mandate under the Postal

Reorganization Act, USPS has chosen to sell this monetizable commodity to

generate revenue. USPS has satisfied its burden of proof for withholding the COA

data pursuant to FOIA Exemption #3 and the Postal Reorganization Act.

A. Framing the Narrow Dispute in This Case

To start, it is useful to frame the relatively narrow scope of the dispute in

this case. As discussed above, when withholding documents under a FOIA

Exemption #3 statute, an agency such as USPS must “demonstrate that: ‘(1) the

statute invoked qualifies as an Exemption 3 withholding statute, and (2) the

materials withheld fall within that statute’s scope.’” Spadaro,

(brackets omitted) (quoting A. Michael’s Piano,

). No party in this

case contests that the Postal Reorganization Act’s “information of a commercial

nature” language constitutes an Exemption #3 withholding statute. The only

19 dispute before us is whether the requested COA data is “of a commercial nature,”

(c)(2), and thus “fall[s] within that statute’s scope,” Spadaro,

(citation omitted).

B. The Requested COA Data Is Protected by the Postal Reorganization Act’s “Information of a Commercial Nature” Exemption

USPS bears the burden of demonstrating that the requested COA data

satisfies both elements of the “information of a commercial nature” exemption.

USPS can satisfy this burden by providing “[a]ffidavits or declarations . . . giving

reasonably detailed explanations why any withheld documents fall within an

exemption.” Carney,

. The relevant “declarations” in this case, as

discussed above, are the original and supplemental declarations of Jeffrey Tackes,

USPS’s Director of Digital Business Services (the “Tackes Declarations”). USPS

has met its burden on both elements—the facts from the Tackes Declarations

demonstrate that the requested COA data is both “of a commercial nature” and is

the type of data a private business ordinarily would not disclose under good

business practice.

20 1. The COA Data Is “Of a Commercial Nature” Because It Is a Monetizable Commodity Derived from the Postal Service’s Core Business of Delivering Mail

USPS took the position at oral argument that the requested COA data is “of

a commercial nature” because it has monetary value. The district court took a

similar approach, finding that “[e]xchanging data for money falls within the plain

meaning of the word ‘commerce’ and the term ‘information of a commercial

nature.’” Bloomberg L.P. v. USPS, No. 22cv6112 (DLC),

, at *4

(S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2023). We agree with the Ninth Circuit that merely having

monetary value “is too broad a definition of commercial[.]” Carlson v. USPS,

(9th Cir. 2007). We find that the requested COA data is “of a

commercial nature” for a narrower reason—not only does it have monetary value,

but that value is derived from and related to USPS’s core “commercial” activity of

delivering the mail.

The Postal Reorganization Act does not define the term “commercial.”

When a statute does not define a specific term, we “look to its ordinary meaning

found in ‘contemporary dictionary definitions.’” Mader v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,

, 269 (2d Cir. 2023) (quoting El Omari v. Int’l Crim. Police Org.,

(2d Cir. 2022)). At the time the Postal Reorganization Act was enacted,

Black’s Law Dictionary defined “commercial” as “[r]elating to or connected with 21 trade and traffic or commerce in general,” and defined “commerce” as “[t]he

exchange of goods, productions, or property of any kind.” Commercial, Black’s

Law Dictionary (Rev. 4th ed. 1968); Commerce, Black’s Law Dictionary (Rev. 4th

ed. 1968). 2

In today’s information-driven economy, the requested COA data is

undoubtedly related to the trade, traffic, and exchange of goods in which USPS

engages. As the Tackes Declarations explain, through the process of operating a

nationwide mail network, “USPS generates intellectual property in the form of

data that competes directly with data assets and services offered by other data

creators and data brokers in the marketplace.” J. App’x at 29. Private businesses

“commonly monetize data assets, particularly those that generate unique value in

the marketplace.”

The requested COA data is exactly this type of “data asset.”

As a data asset, the requested COA data undoubtedly has great economic

value. As the Tackes Declarations explain, “location data sources are critical

inputs used . . . to process and/or visualize real world population movement

trends. Location data intelligence is leveraged in many markets and use cases,

2In the similar context of FOIA Exemption #4, this Court defined “commercial” as “pertaining or relating to or dealing with commerce.” American Airlines, Inc. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd.,

, 870 (2d Cir. 1978). The Ninth Circuit adopted an essentially identical definition in the specific context of the Postal Reorganization Act’s “information of a commercial nature” language. See Carlson, 504 F.3d at 1128–29. 22 including placement or staging of services (retail, real estate, construction,

marketing, etc.).” Id. at 37. Monetization of data assets is a common practice

among large businesses today, and there is no doubt that a data asset as large and

robust as the USPS COA database has significant potential value.

As stated above, it would be insufficient to say the requested COA data is

“commercial” merely because it has potential economic value. The value needs to

have some relation to the “commerce” in which USPS engages—the delivery of

the mail.

At oral argument, Appellants presented the hypothetical of USPS choosing

to sell access to the private schedules of the Postmaster General or the members of

the USPS Board of Governors. Such information would certainly have value to

corporate lobbyists. This information would not, however, derive this value from

any connection to the trade or commerce in which USPS engages. The daily

schedules of high-ranking officers are documents that any federal agency would

keep in the course of its ordinary governmental functions. Such schedules are

much more akin to the documents concerning the “names, addresses, telephone

numbers, and regular business hours of post offices” that the Ninth Circuit found

to not constitute “commercial information” in Carlson.

.

23 The requested COA data, however, is not something kept in the ordinary

course of governmental business that merely happens to have economic value.

COA data is a specific, monetizable data asset that USPS generates through

carrying out its statutorily mandated commercial activity of delivering the mail.

This data is “commercial” in every sense of the word.

Appellants are certainly correct that the Postal Service is late to the game in

realizing that the COA data has commercial value—after all, the record indicates

that USPS had granted similar FOIA requests mere months before denying the

requests at issue in this case. However, nothing in FOIA or the Postal

Reorganization Act precludes the Postal Service from changing how it treats

certain information as it adapts to shifts in the broader economy. Indeed,

delegating this type of business decision to the Postal Service itself was one of the

primary motivations for the Postal Reorganization Act. See Kuzma,

(discussing a USPS regulation that “manifested . . . the specific concerns of the

Postal Reorganization Act in modernizing the day-to-day managerial operations

of the postal system” and “represents a proper exercise of the business discretion

afforded to USPS by congressional mandate”). Additionally, it strikes us as

relevant that USPS did not withhold this information out of a general interest in

24 someday monetizing it—at the time USPS denied Appellants’ FOIA requests, the

development of Population Mobility Trends was already under way. This is a

sharp distinction from the information about Post Office locations in Carlson,

which provided USPS with only the vague and undefined benefit of potentially

increasing website traffic. See Carlson, 504 F.3d at 1127–28.

2. The COA Data Is Information That Would Not Ordinarily Be Disclosed Under Good Business Practice

In addition to demonstrating that requested documents are “of a

commercial nature,” USPS must demonstrate that the requested documents

“under good business practice would not be publicly disclosed.”

(c)(2). We find the Fourth Circuit’s analysis of “good business practice” to be

compelling—whether release of the documents would be good business practice

“should be decided with reference to what businesses normally do.” Wickwire

Gavin,

.

The Tackes Declarations establish that as a valuable, monetizable data asset

that USPS intended to sell through Population Mobility Trends, the requested

COA data would not ordinarily be disclosed “under good business practice.” Put

25 simply, a private business would not give away for free the information that it was

also attempting to sell. 3

As part of the development process for Population Mobility Trends, USPS

conducted extensive market research, which included “valuating the other

services in the market; determining how those services are consumed[; and]

determining which licensing terms are applicable for this type of data offering[.]”

J. App’x at 37. The original Tackes Declaration provided three specific examples

of competitor private businesses that sell similar types of location data. 4 See

USPS reviewed this research and made a reasonable determination that “other

private businesses that gather and sell location data would not customarily release

to the public information relating to population movement patterns and trends.”

at 37–38.

3The concurring and dissenting opinion points out that USPS conceded that it could not assert Exemption #3 over the requested data if it did not maintain the Population Mobility Trends product. Concurring and Dissenting Op. 2-3. But because the Population Mobility Trends product is on the market, and because we have concluded that the requested COA information is commercial, that the Population Mobility Trends does not contain all of the information that Appellants may want does not render the relevant data non- commercial. 4 See, e.g., Here Technologies, https://here.com/ [https://perma.cc/L328-D5JP] (last visited Aug. 15, 2024) (private business that sells mapping data); SafeGraph, https://safegraph.com [https://perma.cc/HM6Y- S3UB] (last visited Aug. 15, 2024) (private company that collects, analyzes, and sells point-of-interest data generated through web traffic analysis); Unacast, https://www.unacast.com [https://perma.cc/8ZP4-M3RY] (last visited Aug. 15, 2024) (private company that collects, analyzes, and sells foot traffic data). 26 Appellants point to several examples in the record of other businesses

publishing articles and studies produced using internally generated data about

population movement, including a study from social media company LinkedIn

and studies from moving and real estate companies such as Zillow, Redfin, and

Allied Van Lines. Appellants also cite an academic paper based on data Facebook

freely disclosed as part of its “Data for Good” initiative. We find the district court’s

analysis of these public studies to be compelling—these companies published

these reports or provided data for these reports to promote their primary, revenue-

generating lines of business, such as social networking, home sales, and moving

and storage. See Bloomberg,

at *5. USPS could have elected to

make a similar business decision and offer COA data for free as a means of

publicizing mail service, but instead it elected to monetize the data under its

statutory mandate to generate new streams of revenue. The Postal Reorganization

Act gives USPS the right to make such a decision.

C. The Postal Reorganization Act and the Structure of Exemption #3 Obviate Any Tension Between Public Access and the Agency’s Operational Mission

Many of the other FOIA exemptions require a weighing of competing

interests. See, e.g., Reps. Comm. for Freedom of Press,

(weighing

privacy concerns with the public interest in analyzing a request under FOIA 27 Exemption #7). However, a determination of whether documents were properly

withheld under Exemption #3 and the Postal Reorganization Act requires no such

weighing of interests. Indeed, “Exemption 3 differs from other FOIA exemptions

in that its applicability depends less on the detailed factual contents of specific

documents; the sole issue for decision is the existence of a relevant statute and the

inclusion of withheld material within the statute’s coverage.” Wilner,

(quoting Ass’n of Retired R.R. Workers,

). Exemption #3

“incorporates the policies” of the other statute being invoked. A. Michael’s Piano,

.

The policies invoked by the Postal Reorganization Act are entirely about

“making the United States Postal Service more businesslike, similar in function

and management to its competitors.” Wickwire Gavin,

. Through

the Postal Reorganization Act and FOIA Exemption #3, Congress has granted the

Postal Service a relatively broad FOIA exemption that is substantially different

from exemptions available to other agencies. The public interest in data-informed

journalism that Appellants present is certainly compelling. However, Congress

has made a policy choice not to require USPS, or a reviewing court, to weigh that

public interest when determining whether to withhold commercial information.

28 CONCLUSION

This Court construes FOIA exemptions narrowly and resolves doubts

against the agency to vindicate FOIA’s statutory interest of “strongly favoring

public disclosure of information in the possession of federal agencies.” Jabar,

. However, in recognizing the unique importance of and unique

challenges involving USPS as an institution, Congress elected to grant USPS

certain exemptions from some generally applicable aspects of administrative law

through the Postal Reorganization Act. Today, we find that USPS has carried its

burden of establishing that the requested COA data is information of a

commercial nature that would not be publicly disclosed under good business

practice. That is enough to resolve the case before us. For the foregoing reasons,

we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

29 MARIA ARAÚJO KAHN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

The majority opinion persuasively explains why the requested change-of-

address (“COA”) data for sale as part of the Population Mobility Trends product

is a valuable commodity that is “of a commercial nature,” and would not

otherwise be disclosed “under good business practice.” See Majority Op. at 21–

29. Accordingly, I join the majority in affirming the district court’s judgment as

to that data. However, I respectfully dissent from Section II.B.2 of the majority

opinion to the extent it addresses the COA data requested by the Appellants that

is not available as part of the Population Mobility Trends product. 1 I would

remand for the district court to determine—with the benefit of additional

briefing—whether the data not included within the Population Mobility Trends

Product would ordinarily be disclosed “under good business practice.”

(c)(2).

1 My dissent extends to footnote three on page twenty-six of the majority opinion, which briefly addresses the arguments set forth in this opinion. As explained infra, if the requested COA data that is unavailable through the Population Mobility Trends product would not ordinarily be disclosed “under good business practice,”

(c)(2), then Exemption #3 does not apply to that data. In that case, the policies behind the Postal Reorganization Act would not supplant the interests animating the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Indeed, FOIA would require disclosure. See Jabar v. U.S. Dep’t of Just.,

(2d Cir. 2023) (per curiam). Accordingly, my dissent is concerned with ensuring that Exemption #3 applies to all COA data requested by the Appellants, including the data not for sale as part of the Population Mobility Trends product.

1 The Population Mobility Trends product allows a licensed user to

purchase some, but not all, of the COA data requested by the Appellants. For

every ZIP code, the product offers users the most popular locations to which

individuals, families, and businesses moved, providing ZIP codes for the top

three destinations within the county, within the state but outside the county, and

outside the state (for a total of nine ZIP codes). In doing so, Population Mobility

Trends combines movement data with demographic information to deliver an

anonymized impression of the people and entities relocating throughout the

county, state, and country. As relevant to the Appellants’ instant Freedom of

Information Act (“FOIA”) requests, the product does not offer migration

information for destination ZIP codes beyond the aforementioned “top three”

categories or for destination ZIP codes with fewer than 11 COA requests within

the past year. It is this data, which is no longer accessible (even from behind a

paywall), that I am concerned may ordinarily be disclosed “under good business

practice.”

(c)(2).

The majority opinion is certainly correct that, “a private business would

not give away for free the information that it was also attempting to sell.”

Majority Op. at 26. But that is not necessarily true of information that is not for

2 sale. At oral argument, the government conceded that, “to the extent the data is

not being sold commercially, . . . I don’t think we would have a basis to assert

Exemption 3 over that data. Again, assuming it is not being offered for sale.”

Oral Arg. Audio Recording at 27:47–28:05. And, as explained above, this data is

not included for sale in the Population Mobility Trends product.

It may be that providing this subset of omitted data would undermine the

commercial viability of Population Mobility Trends. It is unclear, however, that

the record supports that conclusion. The declarations of Jeffrey Tackes, USPS’s

Director of Digital Business Services, only briefly—and broadly—address this

subject. Tackes notes that “[p]ublicly releasing the requested COA data sought

by the FOIA Requests will provide information and insights to marketplace data

providers, data aggregators and data solutions that will harm USPS’s ability to

license this data for its full commercial value.” J. App’x 38. It is clear why his

statement is true for the COA data included in Population Mobility Trends, but it

is less obvious why the same rationale extends to the COA data that is not.

Accordingly, additional briefing is necessary to clarify the issue.

To be clear, my interest in this data is not merely academic. If this portion

of the COA data is not exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption 3, then

3 FOIA demands disclosure. See Jabar v. U.S. Dep’t of Just.,

(2d Cir.

2023) (per curiam) (emphasizing that agencies must disclose requested

documents that fall outside of an enumerated exemption).

Thus, while I join the majority opinion in full as to the data included in the

Population Mobility Trends, I respectfully dissent from Section II.B.2 of the

majority opinion to the extent it addresses the requested COA data that is

unavailable through Population Mobility Trends. Moreover, I would hold that

remand is required for the district court to assess whether that unavailable

information would ordinarily be disclosed “under good business practice.”

(c)(2).

4