Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment — W6 Restaurant Group, Ltd v. The Small Business Administration
Summary
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment with its Memorandum in Support, filed July 1, 2025 as Doc #: 45 in W6 Restaurant Group, LTD, et al. versus The Small Business Administration, Case No. 1:23-CV-01735, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The restaurant plaintiffs, under Rule 56, ask for an order directing the SBA to produce information sought in their FOIA Request 6 about unapproved applications to the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, and their reasonable fees. The memorandum argues that neither FOIA Exemption 4 nor Exemption 6 justifies withholding the identities, application dates and times of applicants who did not receive grants. It also argues that the SBA cannot show foreseeable harm under the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. Counsel signed /s/ Manju Gupta.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment — W6 Restaurant Group, Ltd v. The Small Business Administration.”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/45-motion-for-summary-judgment-filed-by-100-e-central-boulevard-fe3167c6c7/
, SHA-256 5fffc27e59a46f5fdc35c26f22b1a9e50663dda99ac11ac37ae6c9ad009f0c5b.Full text
Case: 1:23-cv-01735-BMB Doc #: 45 Filed: 07/01/25 1 of 9. PageID #: 2359
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
W6 RESTAURANT GROUP, LTD, et al., ) CASE NO. 1:23-CV-01735
)
Plaintiffs, ) JUDGE BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN
v. )
)
THE SMALL BUSINESS ) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
ADMINISTRATION, ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT
)
Defendant. )
Plaintiffs,1 through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure move this Court for summary judgment in their favor and against Defendant The
Small Business Administration (“SBA”). As detailed in the Memorandum in Support that
accompanies this Motion, neither of the exemptions relied upon by the SBA applies to preclude it
from disclosing the information about unapproved applications for funds from the Restaurant
Revitalization Fund (“RRF”) sought in Request 6. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to an order
directing the SBA to produce that information and their reasonable fees.
1 Plaintiffs include the following entities: (i) 100 E. Central Boulevard, LLC dba Stagger Inn (“Stagger
Inn”); (ii) 1909 W25, LLC dba Town Hall Ohio City (“Town Hall”); (iii) 2125 Cafe, LLC dba Green Goat
(“Green Goat”); (iv) TH CBUS, LLC dba Town Hall Columbus (“Town Hall Columbus”); (v) Bistecca
Corporation dba Parma Hts. Harry Buffalo (“Harry Buffalo”); (vi) HB Church Street, LLC dba Harry
Buffalo Orlando (“Harry Buffalo Orlando”); (vii) HHHB, LLC dba Highland Heights Harry Buffalo
(“Highland Heights Harry Buffalo”); (viii) JSJ Klub, LLC dba E.4th Harry Buffalo (“E.4th Harry
Buffalo”); (ix) MGG Hospitality, LLC dba Rebol Cleveland (“Rebol”); (x) Star Bar & Grill, Inc. dba Harry
Buffalo (“Star Grill”); (xi) The Other Bar, LLC (“The Other Bar”); (xii) W6 Restaurant Group, LTD, dba
Barley House (“Barley House”); (xiii) Mandrake Columbus, LLC dba Town Hall Rooftop (“Town Hall
Rooftop”); (xiv) Westerville Restaurant Group, LLC dba Harry Buffalo (“Westerville Harry Buffalo”);
and (xv) Summer House, LLC dba Summer House (“Summer House”).
Case: 1:23-cv-01735-BMB Doc #: 45 Filed: 07/01/25 2 of 9. PageID #: 2360
Dated: July 1, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Manju Gupta
Manju Gupta (0076452)
Melissa Z. Kelly (0077441)
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
950 Main Avenue—Suite 1100
Cleveland, OH 44113-7213
Telephone: 216.592.5000
Facsimile: 216.592.5009
Email: manju.gupta@tuckerellis.com
melissa.kelly@tuckerellis.com
Kevin M. Spellacy
LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN SPELLACY
323 West Lakeside Avenue, Ste. 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: 216-344-9220
Email: kevin@spellacylaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ii
Case: 1:23-cv-01735-BMB Doc #: 45 Filed: 07/01/25 3 of 9. PageID #: 2361
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
W6 RESTAURANT GROUP, LTD, et al., ) CASE NO. 1:23-CV-01735
)
Plaintiffs, ) JUDGE BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN
v. )
)
THE SMALL BUSINESS ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
ADMINISTRATION, ) PLAINTIFFS’MOTION FOR
) SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant. )
Case: 1:23-cv-01735-BMB Doc #: 45 Filed: 07/01/25 4 of 9. PageID #: 2362
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary of Issues .......................................................................................................................... 1
Summary of the Argument.............................................................................................................. 1
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3
II. Relevant Background .............................................................................................................. 3
A. In their ongoing efforts to understand how the SBA mishandled the RRF, Plaintiffs seek
information about the SBA’s review process through FOIA.......................................................... 3
B. Plaintiffs file an Action under FOIA and the SBA responds with partial productions........... 5
III. The SBA needs to justify its non-disclosure. ...................................................................... 7
IV. FOIA requires the SBA to release applicant data. .............................................................. 9
A. The SBA is not justified in withholding applicant data under Exemption 4. ......................... 9
1. Request 6, in part, seeks government-created information that falls outside
Exemption 4. ............................................................................................................................. 10
2. Request 6 does not seek commercial or financial information. ........................................ 11
3. Request 6 does not seek confidential information. ........................................................... 14
B. The SBA is not justified in withholding applicant data under Exemption 6. ....................... 17
C. The SBA cannot establish that “foreseeable harm” would befall unapproved applicants if it
discloses their basic information. .................................................................................................. 20
V. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 20
ii
Case: 1:23-cv-01735-BMB Doc #: 45 Filed: 07/01/25 5 of 9. PageID #: 2363
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
112 Genesee St., LLC v. United States,
No. 25-1373 (Fed. Cir. 2025) ..................................................................................................... 4
112 Genesee St., LLC v. United States.,
172 Fed. Cl. 426 (Fed. Cl. 2024) ................................................................................................ 4
Abraham & Rose, P.L.C. v. United States,
138 F.3d 1075 (6th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................... 8
Am. Immigr. Lawyers Ass’n v. Exec. Office for Immigr. Review,
830 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................ 18, 19
Chang v. Dep’t of Navy,
314 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2004) ............................................................................................ 19
Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Dep’t of Just.,
58 F.4th 1255 (D.C. Cir. 2023) .......................................................................................... passim
Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. United States. Dep’t of Lab.,
424 F. Supp. 3d 771 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .......................................................................... 13, 15, 18
Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose,
425 U.S. 352 (1976) .................................................................................................................... 8
Dobronski v. FCC,
17 F.3d 275 (9th Cir. 1994) ...................................................................................................... 19
Env’t Prot. Agency v. Mink,
410 U.S. 73 (1973) ...................................................................................................................... 8
Food Mktg. Inst. v. Argus Leader Media,
588 U.S. 427 (2019) ........................................................................................................... passim
Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin.,
449 F.3d 141 (D.C. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 10
Pub. Citizen Health Rsch. Grp. v. Food & Drug Admin.,
704 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ................................................................................................ 12
Rosenberg v. United States Dep’t of Def.,
442 F. Supp. 3d 240 (D.D.C. 2020) .......................................................................................... 20
Rugiero v. United States Dep't of Just.,
257 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................................... 7
iii
Case: 1:23-cv-01735-BMB Doc #: 45 Filed: 07/01/25 6 of 9. PageID #: 2364
S. Env’t L. Ctr. v. Tenn. Valley Auth.,
659 F. Supp. 3d 902 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 7, 2023) ................................................................. 10, 11
Seife v. United States Food and Drug Admin.,
43 F.4th 231 (2d Cir. 2022) .................................................................................................. 8, 10
United States Dep’t of Def. v. Fed. Lab. Rels. Auth.,
510 U.S. 487 (1994) .................................................................................................................. 19
United States Dep’t of State v. Washington Post Co.,
456 U.S. 595 (1982) .................................................................................................................. 17
Varnum LLP v. United States.Dep’t of Lab.,
No. 1:18-CV-1156, 2021 WL 1387773 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 15, 2021)...................................... 10
WP Co. LLC v. United States Small Bus. Admin.,
502 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2020) ............................................................................ 16, 17, 18, 19
Statutes
§ 9009c(c)(3)(A) ............................................................................................................................. 3
15 U.S.C. § 9009c ........................................................................................................................... 3
15 U.S.C. § 9009c(a),(b)(2)(A) ....................................................................................................... 3
15 U.S.C. § 9009c(c)(1) .................................................................................................................. 3
15 U.S.C. § 9009c(c)(5)(A)-(K) ............................................................................................. 15, 18
5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A) .................................................................................................................. 8
5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A)(i)(I)–(II) ............................................................................................. 9, 20
5 U.S.C. § 552(b) ............................................................................................................................ 8
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4) ........................................................................................................... 9, 11, 14
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) ..................................................................................................................... 17
5 U.S.C. § 552(d) ............................................................................................................................ 8
5 U.S.C.§ 551(2) ........................................................................................................................... 10
ARPA, H.R. 1319,
117th Cong. (2021) ..................................................................................................................... 3
iv
Case: 1:23-cv-01735-BMB Doc #: 45 Filed: 07/01/25 7 of 9. PageID #: 2365
Rules
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) ........................................................................................................................ 11
v
Case: 1:23-cv-01735-BMB Doc #: 45 Filed: 07/01/25 8 of 9. PageID #: 2366
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Plaintiffs contend that Defendant the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) is
improperly withholding information responsive to one of Plaintiffs’ Freedom of Information Act
(“FOIA”) requests. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment raises the following issues:
1. Whether the SBA may withhold disclosure under FOIA Exemption 4?
2. Whether the SBA may withhold disclosure under FOIA Exemption 6?
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Plaintiffs brought this FOIA lawsuit against the SBA after the SBA refused to produce
information in response to FOIA requests targeted as acquiring information that would reveal how
the SBA administered and distributed funds in the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (“RRF”).
Specifically, the SBA has refused to disclose the identities of applicants who did not receive RRF
grant funds. Request 6 sought eight categories of information about both approved and unapproved
applicants:
Documents listing all RRF grant applicants, regardless of whether
the applicant received or was awarded a grant. The data should
include: (i) the name of the applicant; (ii) application date and time;
(iii) data as to the queue or order for processing the applications; (iv)
data regarding the application being approved, denied, or in process
date of grant approval; (v) if approved, award amount; (vi) grant
purpose; (vii) whether the grant applicant identified as being women
owned, socially/economically disadvantaged, or veteran owned; and
(viii) any other information reported to USAspending.gov for
federal awards.
The SBA provided this information for approved applicants but not unapproved ones
(“Unapproved Grant Applications”). None of the exemptions relied upon by the SBA in declining
to provide that information applies to excuse that refusal.
Case: 1:23-cv-01735-BMB Doc #: 45 Filed: 07/01/25 9 of 9. PageID #: 2367
First, the SBA contends that it can withhold information about Unapproved Grant
Applications because disclosure would offend the privacy interests of those applicants and that
information is shielded from disclosure by FOIA Exemption 4. The identity of the applicant, and
date and time of the application, along with the information, however, does not reveal anything
even about the applicant’s finances. Moreover, the FOIA request did not request the award amount
for Unapproved Grant Applications. On top of those problems, at least half of the information does
not fall under the Exemption because it is generated internally at the SBA. Moreover, the
application expressly notified the applicants that if they applied, their information would be subject
to disclosure in response to FOIA requests.
Second, the SBA argues that releasing information would constitute a “clearly unwarranted
invasions of personal privacy” within the scope of FOIA Exemption 6. But federal circuit courts
have squarely held, in these precise circumstances, that FOIA demands transparency rather than
concealment. The privacy interest in the Unapproved Grant Applications is minimal at most, while
releasing the Unapproved Grant Applications would advance the public interest in monitoring the
extraordinary outlay of federal funds. The Exemption 6 balancing test thus weighs decisively in
favor of disclosure.
Third, the SBA cannot carry the increased burden imposed on federal agencies to justify
nondisclosure following the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. The SBA now must do more than
argue that releasing the Unapproved Grant Applications could cause harm to the interests protected
by Exemptions 4 and 6 – it must demonstrate that such harm is a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of disclosure.
That is especially true here, where disclosure serves to monitor the efficiency and integrity
of an agency’s administration of multi-billion-dollar programs like the RRF. As the SBA can claim
2
File and source
- File
- 45-motion-for-summary-judgment-filed-by-100-e-central-boulevard.pdf
- Size
- 43,978 bytes
- SHA-256
- 5fffc27e59a46f5fdc35c26f22b1a9e50663dda99ac11ac37ae6c9ad009f0c5b
- Original
- No public link identified.