Nvidia Corporation antitrust investigation records

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, I hereby request the following records:

- All communications and documents regarding the DOJ's investigation into Nvidia Corporation's AI chip market position and contracts, including internal memos, emails, reports, and meeting notes.
- Records of communications between the DOJ and Nvidia Corporation concerning the investigation, encompassing correspondence, meeting minutes, and any agreements or understandings reached.
- Market analysis documents regarding Nvidia's AI chip market share, including studies, statistical data, and competitive assessments prepared by or for the DOJ.
- Inter-agency communications with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding AI market competition investigations, specifically relating to Nvidia Corporation and the broader AI chip market.

Legal Basis for Disclosure

The requested information will:

- Illuminate the operations and activities of the DOJ regarding tech market competition, thereby serving the public interest in transparency and accountability, as emphasized in FCC v. AT&T Inc., 562 U.S. 397 (2011).
- Contribute significantly to public understanding of governmental oversight of AI technology, meeting the standard set in Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. DOJ, 365 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

This investigation concerns:

- Questions of federal competitive oversight in a critical technology sector, akin to issues in United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001), impacting the economy and innovation.
- Matters of emerging public concern regarding AI market concentration, as noted in Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. DOJ, 436 F.3d 264, 266 (D.C. Cir. 2006), affecting public confidence in governmental oversight.

Response Requirements

Per Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989), if any portion is withheld, please:

- Identify specific FOIA exemptions claimed for each withheld record.
- Provide all reasonably segregable portions of responsive records.
- Describe withheld material with sufficient detail to permit an assessment of the claimed exemptions.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 20 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Kyle Wiggers

Dear FOIA Appeals Officer:

I am writing to formally appeal the Department of Justice's response dated November 25, 2024, to my Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request concerning documents related to the DOJ's investigation of Nvidia Corporation's position in the AI chip market.

+ Legal Basis for Appeal

The agency's blanket withholding of all requested documents under Exemption 7(A) is overly broad and fails to meet the specific criteria established by federal courts. In Mapother v. Department of Justice, 3 F.3d 1533 (D.C. Cir. 1993), the court held that an agency must provide a "substantially more specific" justification for withholding documents than a generalized claim of potential interference with enforcement proceedings.

Specifically:

1) Overbroad Application of Exemption 7(A):

In ACLU v. Department of Justice, 655 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011), the court emphasized that Exemption 7(A) requires a demonstration of "foreseeable harm" from disclosure. The DOJ's response does not specify in detail how the release of each withheld document would interfere with ongoing enforcement proceedings. Without a detailed explanation, the exemption is improperly applied.

2) Failure to Comply with the Segregability Requirement:

Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b), agencies are required to release all reasonably segregable, non-exempt portions of requested records. In Founding Church of Scientology v. Smith, 721 F.2d 828 (D.C. Cir. 1983), the court mandated that agencies must conduct a thorough review to segregate and release non-exempt information. The DOJ's blanket withholding suggests that no such effort was made.

3) Misapplication of Other Potential Exemptions:

While the DOJ cited Exemption 7(A), it did not address whether other exemptions might apply. Anticipating potential claims under Exemptions 4 or 5, I assert that the disclosure would not reveal trade secrets or privileged inter-agency communications, as the requested documents pertain to the agency's activities and not proprietary information from Nvidia.

4) Compelling Public Interest

The Supreme Court in Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989), emphasized the critical role of transparency in maintaining an informed public. The investigation into Nvidia's dominance in the AI chip market has significant implications for competition, consumer choice, and technological innovation.

Recent reports have highlighted concerns about monopolistic practices and their impact on the economy and national security. Disclosure of the DOJ's investigative actions will enhance public understanding of how the government addresses these pressing issues, fostering trust and accountability.

+ Requested Relief

I respectfully request that the Office of Information Policy:

1) Conduct a Document-by-Document Review:

In accordance with Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), please perform a detailed review of each withheld document to assess the applicability of Exemption 7(A) on a case-by-case basis.

2) Provide a Detailed Vaughn Index:

Supply a comprehensive index describing each withheld document, the exemption claimed, and a specific justification for its withholding. This will facilitate a meaningful review and appeal process.

3) Release All Reasonably Segregable Information:

Disclose all portions of the documents that do not meet the criteria for exemption, as mandated by 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).

4) Demonstrate Specific, Articulable Harm:

Clearly articulate how the disclosure of each specific document would cause foreseeable harm to enforcement proceedings, in line with the standards set forth in ACLU v. Department of Justice.

For any questions or clarifications, please feel free to contact me. I am willing to assist in any way to facilitate the processing of this appeal.

Sincerely,
Kyle Wiggers

I'm following up on the appeal.