Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-97-05228/USCOURTS-caDC-97-05228-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

Filed October 6, 1998

No. 97-5228

In Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on the Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency

Consolidated with

No. 97-5229

---------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(94ms00329)

(95ms00006)

---------

On Petition for Rehearing

---------

Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Silberman and Sentelle,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Silberman.

Silberman, Circuit Judge: The government's petition for

rehearing raises one point that calls for a response. We held

that the government's deliberative process privilege does not

apply when a cause of action is directed at the government's

intent. We explained that the privilege had developed in and

applies to circumstances where the government decisionmaking process is "collateral" to a plaintiff's claim. The government suggests that the term "collateral" is imprecise and that

the deliberative process privilege has been employed in circumstances where the government's decisionmaking process

could not be thought collateral to the cause of action. According to the government, our reasoning could be interpreted as suggesting that the deliberate process privilege would

not apply in a case where the government action is challenged

as arbitrary and capricious under the APA because, if an

illegal motive were shown, then the government's action

USCA Case #97-5228 Document #387388 Filed: 10/06/1998 Page 1 of 2
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

would necessarily be arbitrary and capricious.

When a party challenges agency action as arbitrary and

capricious the reasonableness of the agency's action is judged

in accordance with its stated reasons. Citizens to Preserve

Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971). Agency

deliberations not part of the record are deemed immaterial.

See Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (1973); United States v.

Morgan, 313 U.S. 409 (1941). That is because the actual

subjective motivation of agency decisionmakers is immaterial

as a matter of law--unless there is a showing of bad faith or

improper behavior. See Saratoga Dev. Corp. v. United

States, 21 F.3d 445, 457-58 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Overton Park,

401 U.S. at 420. (Where there is no administrative record to

review, the party challenging the agency action may inquire

into the decisionmaking process in order to create such a

record, but it does not necessarily follow that the party can

also probe subjective motivations.)

Whether or not under those circumstances it is accurate to

refer to the agency's decisionmaking process as collateral, it

is clear that the ordinary APA cause of action does not

directly call into question the agency's subjective intent. And

our holding that the deliberative process privilege is unavailable is limited to those circumstances in which the cause of

action is directed at the agency's subjective motivation.

USCA Case #97-5228 Document #387388 Filed: 10/06/1998 Page 2 of 2