The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court order that would have required the disclosure of six million documents under the Freedom of Information Act in *Kalbers v. Volkswagen AG*, a case involving records from Volkswagen's criminal plea agreement with the Department of Justice.
Lawrence Kalbers filed a FOIA request seeking every document that Volkswagen AG turned over to federal prosecutors as part of the automaker's criminal plea deal with the DOJ. The documents in question were obtained by the Justice Department through a grand jury investigation, with all but four of the six million documents labeled as responsive to a grand jury request.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where Judge Fernando M. Olguin initially ordered the disclosure of the massive document collection. However, both Volkswagen AG and the Department of Justice appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit.
The appeals court's decision was issued January 30, 2026, following oral arguments held May 16, 2025, in Pasadena, California. The case required an unusual procedural adjustment when Judge Sandra Ikuta, who was originally assigned to the three-judge panel, died during the proceedings. Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. was subsequently drawn by lot to replace her, according to Ninth Circuit General Order 3.2.h. Judge Smith reviewed the briefs, examined the record, and listened to the oral arguments before participating in the decision.
The final panel consisted of Judge Ryan D. Nelson, who wrote the opinion, Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., and District Judge David A. Ezra of the District of Hawaii, who sat by designation. The court issued its ruling as an opinion "for publication," indicating it will serve as precedential authority for future cases.
The Ninth Circuit's decision centered on FOIA Exemption 3, which provides that FOIA does not apply to matters that are specifically exempted from disclosure by other federal statutes. The court examined whether the documents, having been obtained through grand jury proceedings, fell under this exemption's protection.
Grand jury materials traditionally receive strong protection under federal law due to the secretive nature of grand jury investigations and the need to protect witnesses and ongoing investigations. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure generally prohibit disclosure of matters occurring before a grand jury, with limited exceptions.
The case represents a significant test of the boundaries between government transparency under FOIA and the traditional secrecy protections afforded to grand jury materials. Kalbers' request sought access to what appears to be one of the largest document productions in recent FOIA litigation, with six million documents representing an enormous trove of potentially sensitive corporate and investigative materials.
Volkswagen's involvement as an intervenor-defendant reflects the company's interest in protecting confidential business information that may have been contained within the documents provided to prosecutors. The automaker faced criminal charges related to its diesel emissions scandal, which resulted in significant financial penalties and corporate reforms.
The Justice Department's position as both a defendant and appellant in the consolidated cases demonstrates the government's dual role in the litigation. While DOJ initially opposed disclosure, the department also had obligations under FOIA to consider whether any documents could be released under the law's disclosure requirements.
The district court's original order requiring disclosure of the six million documents would have represented one of the most extensive FOIA releases in recent memory. However, the Ninth Circuit's reversal means that the vast majority of these materials will remain protected from public disclosure under the grand jury secrecy rules.
The appeals court's decision to reverse "in part" and vacate "in part" suggests that while most of the documents will remain protected, some portion may still be subject to disclosure requirements. The opinion likely addresses whether any of the documents fall outside grand jury protection or whether redacted versions might be appropriate for release.
This case highlights the ongoing tension between public access to government information and the need to protect sensitive investigative materials. The outcome may influence how courts handle similar FOIA requests involving documents obtained through grand jury investigations, particularly in high-profile corporate criminal cases.
The ruling also demonstrates the practical challenges courts face when dealing with massive document collections in the digital age. Managing six million documents for review and potential disclosure represents a significant administrative and legal burden for all parties involved.
For future FOIA requesters seeking access to materials connected to grand jury investigations, the Ninth Circuit's decision provides important guidance on the scope of Exemption 3's protections. The precedential nature of the published opinion means it will guide similar cases throughout the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction, which includes nine western states and two territories.