Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-96-05226/USCOURTS-caDC-96-05226-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued February 13, 1997 Decided April 22, 1997

No. 96-5226

PUBLIC CITIZEN, INC.,

APPELLEE

v.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION,

APPELLANTS

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(No. 95cv02095)

Marina Utgoff-Braswell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued 

the cause for appellants. With her on the briefs were Eric H. 

Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney, and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant 

U.S. Attorney.

Colette G. Mattzie argued the cause for appellee. With her 

on the brief was Michael E. Tankersley.

USCA Case #96-5226 Document #267321 Filed: 04/22/1997 Page 1 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: SILBERMAN, WILLIAMS and GINSBURG, Circuit 

Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILLIAMS.

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge: Pursuant to the Freedom of

Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1994), Public 

Citizen seeks access to certain records maintained by the 

National Archives and Records Administration ("Archives") 

and the Department of Justice. The records sought are 

communications between the two agencies and former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush relating to access to 

their respective presidential records.

The defendant agencies invoked FOIA's Exemption 5, id. 

§ 552(b)(5), governing "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters," the so-called deliberative process exemption. They argued that because the communications took 

place as part of consultations called for by the Presidential 

Records Act, 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201-07 (1994), they fit within the 

established rule applying Exemption 5 to communications 

between an agency and an external consultant, when made 

for the purpose of aiding the agency's deliberative process. 

The district court rejected the claim, on the ground that the 

relationship between the former Presidents and Archives was 

potentially adversarial and the communications therefore outside the deliberative process exemption. We reverse.

* * *

In 1989 private parties brought suit to assure the preservation of Reagan-era records found on the computer systems of 

the Executive Office of the President and the National Security Council. See generally Armstrong v. Executive Office of 

the President, 90 F.3d 553, 556 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Armstrong 

v. Executive Office of the President, 1 F.3d 1274, 1280 (D.C. 

Cir. 1993). The Archivist took custody of these records in 

January 1993. In March 1994, following discussions with 

Archives, President Reagan waived Presidential Records Act 

restrictions that he had formerly imposed as to these computer tapes. The communications leading to this waiver, between Archives, the Department of Justice and former President Reagan, form the first set of records disputed here.

USCA Case #96-5226 Document #267321 Filed: 04/22/1997 Page 2 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

The second set of records are communications between the 

same agencies and former President Bush. Archives had 

taken custody of the electronic records from his administration when he left office on January 20, 1993. At the same 

time, he and Archivist Don W. Wilson signed an agreement 

("Bush-Wilson Agreement") stating that President Bush 

would "retain exclusive legal control of all Presidential information ... contained on the materials" and setting forth 

procedures for segregating and identifying Presidential materials. American Historical Association v. Peterson, 876 

F. Supp. 1300, 1323 (D.D.C. 1995). In addition, it provided 

that any "Presidential information on the materials shall be 

disposed of in accordance with instructions of George 

Bush...." Id. at 1324. In December 1994 the American 

Historical Association and others (including Public Citizen) 

challenged this agreement as in violation of the Presidential 

Records Act. See id. at 1303. In late January 1995 the 

Archivist and counsel for President Bush exchanged letters 

memorializing their agreement on the treatment of the electronic records covered by the Bush-Wilson Agreement. The 

Department of Justice, a party to the American Historical 

Association lawsuit, filed the exchange of letters with the 

district court, arguing that this agreement mooted claims that 

the earlier agreement was illegal. The communications leading to the January 1995 agreement constitute the second set 

of records at issue.

* * *

FOIA's deliberative process exemption protects from disclosure "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than 

an agency in litigation with the agency." 5 U.S.C. 

§ 552(b)(5). We find that communications between Archives 

and a former President on matters relating to Presidential 

records fall within this exception.

While Public Citizen is doubtless right that a former President is not an agency under FOIA, see id. §§ 551(1), 552(f), 

records of communications between an agency and outside 

consultants qualify as "intra-agency" for purposes of Exemption 5 if they have been "created for the purpose of aiding the 

USCA Case #96-5226 Document #267321 Filed: 04/22/1997 Page 3 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

agency's deliberative process." Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. 

Department of Justice, 917 F.2d 571, 575 (D.C. Cir. 1990) 

(emphasis in original); CNA Financial Corp. v. Donovan, 830 

F.2d 1132, 1161 (D.C. Cir. 1987). It is "irrelevant" whether 

the author of the documents is "a regular agency employee or 

a temporary consultant." Formaldehyde Institute v. Dept. of 

Health and Human Svcs., 889 F.2d 1118, 1122 (D.C. Cir. 

1989) (citations omitted). Two circumstances make application of this doctrine to the disputed records peculiarly appropriate.

First, the former President in this context can hardly be 

viewed as an ordinary private citizen. He retains aspects of 

his former rolemost importantly, for current purposes, the 

authority to assert the executive privilege regarding Presidential communications. Nixon v. Administrator of General 

Services, 433 U.S. 425, 448-49 (1977); Public Citizen v. 

Burke, 843 F.2d 1473 (D.C. Cir. 1988). In finding that he 

possessed such authority, the Court in Nixon adopted the 

Solicitor General's reasoning that, for a President to be able 

to give adequate assurances of confidentiality to his advisors, 

the assurances must last beyond his tenure. "[T]he privilege 

is not for the benefit of the President as an individual, but for 

the benefit of the Republic. Therefore the privilege survives 

the individual President's tenure." Nixon, 433 U.S. at 449.

Second, the consultative relationship involved here is not 

only explicit, cf. Dow Jones, 917 F.2d at 575 (recognizing even 

implicit relationships), but is mandated by statute. The 

Presidential Records Act establishes an elaborate structure 

for the management of Presidential records. The United 

States retains ownership, possession and control. 44 U.S.C. 

§ 2202 (1994). But the President plays a significant role even 

after he leaves office. On his departure, he must designate 

what records (within specified categories) will be "restricted" 

and for what period (up to 12 years). Id. § 2204(a). Before 

deciding whether to allow access to such a restricted record, 

the Archivist must consult the former President, id. 

§ 2204(b)(3). The former President may, if he wishes, waive 

his restrictions, id. § 2204(b)(1)(A)(i), but, on the other hand, 

he may (consonant with Nixon) challenge in court any deciUSCA Case #96-5226 Document #267321 Filed: 04/22/1997 Page 4 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

sions by the Archivist that he believes violate his rights or 

privileges, id. § 2204(e).

Consultations under the Presidential Records Act are precisely the type that Exemption 5 was designed to protect. If 

it is to effectively deliberate, an agency may need or want to 

"enlist the help of outside experts skilled at unravelling [the] 

knotty complexities" of "problems outside their ken." CNA 

Financial Corp., 830 F.2d at 1162. The former President 

clearly qualifies as an expert on the implications of disclosure 

of Presidential records from his administration.

In resisting application of the deliberative process privilege, 

Public Citizen asserts a series of false dichotomies. Because 

there are other aspects to the relationship, it says, it cannot 

be consultative for purposes of Exemption 5. But the consultative relationship is not mutually exclusive with any of the 

others to which Public Citizen points. At some point, of 

course, features of the other relationships (above all, a possible future adversary one) might come to eclipse the consultative relationship, but plaintiff has offered nothing concrete to 

suggest any movement in that direction here.

Public Citizen's central claim is that the former President 

has a distinct and independent interest that makes him an 

adversary rather than a consultant. Similarly, it says that 

the Presidential Records Act does not establish the type of 

consultative role protected under FOIA Exemption 5, but 

rather is designed to "avert disputes or misunderstandings 

concerning [the former President's] rights." Appellee's Br. 

at 25. It is clearly true that a former President's power to 

assert his rights and privileges, preserved and given specific 

judicial venue in the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 

§ 2204(e), constitutes an independent interest. But consultations under the Act are not just about rights and privileges. 

The Archivist has "an affirmative duty to make [Presidential] 

records available to the public as rapidly and completely as 

possible consistent with the provisions of [the] Act." Id. 

§ 2203(f)(1). Archives's Special Counsel for Information Policy explained that in that context there was a need for 

USCA Case #96-5226 Document #267321 Filed: 04/22/1997 Page 5 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

conversations "to facilitate correct and consistent application 

of the restriction categories, to maximize rapid disclosure of 

records to the public, and to ensure smooth and workable 

procedures for dealing with special access requests." Supplemental Declaration of Miriam M. Nisbet at 3. The existence 

of independent presidential interests provides no basis for 

doubting this explanation.

Public Citizen attacks the government's reliance on government participants' description of the subjects of the colloquies, condemning this as "reliance on the subjective perceptions of the government attorneys." Appellee Br. at 30. But 

the first step of deciding whether a document is deliberative 

is to examine the purposes for which it was prepared, Formaldehyde, 889 F.2d at 1124, and the first step of that inquiry 

is, almost inevitably, to hear out the participants. See, e.g., 

id. at 1124-25. Having nothing to contradict the participants' 

account of the deliberations' function, plaintiff cannot prevail 

by dubbing that account "subjective."

More generally, the potential for an adversary relationship 

is not enough to negate one of consultation. Doctors, lawyers 

and other expert advisors may find themselves in litigation as 

either plaintiffs or defendants against those whom they advise 

(e.g., breach of contract and malpractice claims), but for all 

that they are still consultants. Similarly, there is often a 

possibility of litigation between entities within the executive 

branch, see Michael Herz, "United States v. United States: 

When Can the Federal Government Sue Itself ?" 32 Wm. & 

Mary L. Rev. 893, 895-96 & nn.3-11 (1991) (citing various 

examples of such suits), yet no one has suggested that courts 

should on this account refuse to apply Exemption 5 to their 

inter-agency communications.

Public Citizen makes a slightly more focussed argument of 

the same type, saying that even if consultations under the 

Presidential Records Act are protected, the records it seeks 

here were not created pursuant to the consultative provisions 

of the Act. First, it attempts to distinguish between negotiations concerning "waiver of access restrictions," which falls 

USCA Case #96-5226 Document #267321 Filed: 04/22/1997 Page 6 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

under 42 U.S.C. § 2204(b)(1), and consultations "as to whether a requested record is subject to an access restriction," 

which falls under § 2204(b)(3). Only on the latter does the 

statute mandate consultation. But as one of the benefits of 

consulting the former President is that he may decide to 

grant a waiver, thereby mooting the access issue, acceptance 

of plaintiff's theory would require an artificial and pointless 

segmentation of the consultative process.

Second, Public Citizen argues that the communications with 

former President Bush concerned the Bush-Wilson agreement, which, according to American Historical Ass'n, 876 

F. Supp. 1300, 1319-20 (D.D.C. 1995), granted power to the 

former President in violation of the Presidential Records Act 

and the Constitution. So? The only role of the Bush-Wilson 

Agreement here was to define the universe of relevant records. The presence of a legal violation in that Agreement has 

nothing to do with whether the consultative provisions of the 

Presidential Records Act apply to communications regarding 

access to the records.

Public Citizen also argues that potential adversity between 

Archives and the former Presidents turns their communications into settlement negotiations. We need not address the 

applicability of Exemption 5 to settlement negotiations, because the existence of peripheral litigation over the underlying records does not make these agreements "settlements." 

Although the Armstrong litigation was in progress at the time 

of President Reagan's waiver, President Reagan was not a 

party to it. Similarly, although the Bush agreement took 

place in the context of the American Historical Ass'n litigation, Bush was not a party at the time of the agreement. 

That the consultations may have helped Archives resolve the 

pending litigation does not strip them of their character as 

consultations under the Presidential Records Act.

A closing note. The disputed communications actually ran 

between the attorneys to the former Presidents, on one side, 

and Archives and the Department of Justice, on the other. 

Public Citizen makes much of the status of the former 

USCA Case #96-5226 Document #267321 Filed: 04/22/1997 Page 7 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Presidents' lawyers as private citizens. But as the lawyers 

served solely in a representative capacity, the former Presidents are the relevant actors for our purposes.

Because we find these records protected by Exemption 5, 

the decision of the District Court is

Reversed.

USCA Case #96-5226 Document #267321 Filed: 04/22/1997 Page 8 of 8