Document: 445 U.S. 375 100 S.Ct. 1194 63 L.Ed.2d 467 GTE SYLVANIA, INCORPORATED et al., Petitioners,v.CONSUMERS UNION OF the UNITED STATES, INC. al. No. 78-1248. Argued Nov. 28, 1979. Decided March 19, 1980. Syllabus In connection with an investigation of hazards in operation television receivers, respondent Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) obtained various accident reports from manufacturers, including petitioners. Respondents Consumers Union United States, Inc., and Public Citizen's Health Research Group (requesters) sought disclosure under Freedom Information Act (FOIA), CPSC determined that did not fall within any FOIA's exemptions notified requesters manufacturers it would release material on a specified date. Petitioners then filed suits Federal District Courts to enjoin allegedly confidential reports, which were consolidated Court for Delaware. While those pending, instant action against CPSC, its Chairman, Commissioners, Secretary, petitioners Columbia, seeking FOIA. That court dismissed complaint while motion preliminary injunction was still pending Delaware, observing had assured be made as soon agency enjoined doing so, concluding, inter alia, there no Art. III case or controversy between federal defendants therefore jurisdiction. Ultimately, Appeals reversed, holding scope effect proceedings permanent meanwhile been issued Delaware foreclose requesters' FOIA suit. Held: 1. There is required establish jurisdiction pursuant even though agrees documents should released when parties desire "precisely same result," here do since contends prevents releasing documents, whereas believe equitable decree by suit cannot deprive them their rights Pp. 382-383. 2. may has disclosing district court. The gives courts order production "improperly" withheld records, but reports. Act's legislative history shows Congress largely concerned unjustified suppression information officials exercise discretion, discretion sole basis obey out respect judicial process, nothing suggest intended require commit contempt documents. 384-387. 192 U.S.App.D.C. 93, 590 F.2d 1209, reversed. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 This presents issue whether Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, 2 * 1974, announced hold public hearing investigate receivers consider need safety standards televisions. 39 Fed.Reg. 10929. notice requested certain television-related accidents. After reviewing voluntarily submitted through orders, 15 2076(b)(1), subpoenas, 2076(b)(3), petitioners, Claims confidentiality accompanied most 3 (the requesters) Act. given access only claim manufacturers. As rest, gave opportunity substantiate claims confidentiality. agreed wait until mid-March 1975 CPSC's determination availability 4 1975, informed if mandated May 1, 1975. Upon receiving notice, States three other Courts,1 contended prohibited 6 2055, Act,2 Trade Secrets 18 1905. temporary restraining orders all actions, consented such at least some cases. Subsequently manufacturers' individual actions series orders. Finally, October entered prohibiting trial. Sylvania Inc. v. Comm'n, 404 F.Supp. 352 (1975). seek intervene action, nor attempt have joined. Instead, 5, Named September Columbia complaint. observed disclosed record so. concluded plaintiffs It also held failed state upon relief could granted they longer possessed records requesters. Nor subject compulsory joinder provision Rule Civil Procedure 19(a) predicated pre-existence over cause present here. 400 848 (DC 1975). Circuit 182 351, 561 349 (1977). "the threshold question Delaware." Id., 356, F.2d, 354. addition, conduct litigation "not easily reconcilable ostensible acceptance [the requesters'] argument disclosed." 357, 355.3 resolve merits claim, instead merely pendente lite relief. Thus, bar although weigh decision two stayed outcome other. concluded, however, balancing because "closing out" without further action.4 effectively "dead" suit.5 efforts below considered "less than vigilant," resulting absence full representation prodisclosure prevented having preclusive effect.6 7 petition writ certiorari. summary judgment permanently data. 443 1152 (Del.1977). We certiorari, vacated Circuit, remanded "for consideration light injunction" Sylvania, 434 1030, 98 761, 54 778 (1978). 8 On remand, reaffirmed meaning III.7 100, 1216 prevent continuation action. Stare decisis deference court's error. Collateral estoppel inapplicable agency's interests diverge too widely private constitute adequate representative. principle comity mandate different result before "none familiar anti-relitigation doctrines operates nonparty right sue enforcement Act; rather, remain unaffected prior solely submitters involved agency." 103, 1219. merits. If enjoining enforcing final awarded 9 441 942, 99 2158, 60 1043 (1979), importance presented.8 now reverse. II 10 raised III. urge here, below, actual presented this agree. 11 purpose case-or-controversy requirement "limit business questions adversary context form historically viewed capable resolution process." Flast Cohen, 392 83, 95, 88 1942, 1950, 20 947 (1968). clash adverse " 'sharpens presentation issues so depends illumination difficult . questions.' O'Shea Littleton, 414 488, 494, 94 669, 675, 38 674 (1974), quoting Baker Carr, 369 186, 204, 82 691, 703, 663 (1962). See supra, U.S., 96-97, S.Ct., 1950-1951. Accordingly, result." Moore Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board Education, 402 47, 48, 91 1292, 1293, 28 (1971) (per curiam ). Muskrat 219 346, 361, 31 250, 255, 55 L.Ed. 246 (1911). 12 want result" litigation. true expressed view fact absent disclosed. 853, n. 14. issued, basic short, whether, existence injunction, violated all. sharply disagree question, evidenced every stage prevail will directly contradictory prospect naturally wish avoid. said, therefore, requirements satisfied.9 13 squarely erred obtain possession terms demonstrate 14 "to withholding improperly withheld." 552(a)(4)(B). section requires showing components: must (1) (2) (3) records. Kissinger Reporters Committee Press, 136, 150, 960, 968, 267. first requirement, withheld, satisfied. statute provides definition term "improperly." makes clear what intended. revision 3, "public information" section, Administrative 1002 (1964 ed.). law provide desired relied Government decisionmaking, become major statutory excuse view." H.R.Rep.No.1497, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., (1966) (hereinafter H.R.Rep.No.1497). id., 4, 12; S.Rep.No.813, 1st (1965) S.Rep.No. 813), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1966, p. 2418; EPA Mink, 410 73, 79, 93 827, 832, 35 119 (1973). Section several vague phrases rely refuse requests disclosure: "in interest," "relating internal management agency," good cause." Even available "persons properly concerned." These undefined placed broad hands deciding disclose, often abused. problem exacerbated lack remedy generally 4-6; 813, 4-5; 112 Cong.Rec. 13642, reprinted Source Book, 93d 47 (Comm.Print 1974) (remarks Rep. Moss) Book); 52 King); 71 Rumsfeld); 832. 16 general philosophy disclosure," close "loopholes allow agencies deny legitimate public," ibid. attention primarily focused hide mistakes irregularities committed agency. Ibid.; 6; Book 69 Monagan); 70 73-74 Hall), needless denials information. Examples included refusal Secretary Navy telephone directories, National Science Foundation disclose cost estimates unsuccessful contractors bids multimillion-dollar contract, Postmaster General's names postal employees. 5-6. 17 Thus officials. 5. employees denying nondisclosure, wanted curb apparently unbridled discretion. 46-47 Moss); 61 Fascell); Skubitz); 80 Anderson). enlightening Senate Report uses "wrongfully" interchangeably. 8. involves distinctly context. At times filing barring disclosure. simply exercise. concerns underlying are inapplicable, effort avoid disclosure; indeed, withhold 19 conclusion being supported established doctrine persons injunctive expected modified proper grounds object order. Howat Kansas, 258 181, 189-190, 42 277, 280-281, 66 550 (1922); Mine Workers, 330 258, 67 677, 884 (1947); Walker City Birmingham, 388 307, 314-321, 87 1824, 1828-1832, 1210 (1967); Pasadena Bd. Education Spangler, 427 424, 439, 96 2697, 2706, 49 599 (1976). doubt injunctions. decrees challenged "only frivolous pretense validity," 315, 1829, course disagreement issuing injunction.10 Under these circumstances, injunctions "respect process," 321, 1832. adopting conceal information, Indeed, necessary protectors public's know. To construe lawful obedience enter violence common understanding extend well beyond intent Congress. 21 conclude Act.11 accordingly 22 Reversed. RCA Corp., Magnavox Co., Zenith Radio Motorola, Warwick Electronics, Aeronutronic Ford Corp. Matsushita Electric America, Sharp Electronic Toshiba-America, Southern New York. General Co. Northern Admiral Western Pennsylvania. A 13th manufacturer, Teledyne Mid-America brought suit, dismissed. 438 208, 210, theory so-called "reverse Act" mandatory bars material, rejected Chrysler Brown, 281, 290-294, 1705, 1711-1713, 208 (1979). noted took nine months date initial request announce make pro forma opposition motions extensions moved dismiss own interlocutory appeal Third granted. U.S.App.D.C., 27, 355, 27. minute provided "since know [after grant injunction] contemplated litigation, maintain cases open statistical purposes." Clerk ordered "close entry specifically stated "[n]othing contained herein shall dismissal disposition matter desirable, party initiate manner entered." App. Pet. Cert. A108. rehearing marked "closed" purposes active again after Appeals' ruling. nevertheless "there appears reason why proceed here," 184 146, 147, 565 721, 722 (1977) transfer 1404. denied much advanced late delay initially taken position controversy. However, persuaded controversy, continued throughout Brief 21, 10; 33, 1216, 33 affirmed 598 790 we certiorari review judgment. Comm'n 444 979, 479, 62 405 reach conflict produce defendants. discuss suggestion does agree injunction. supra. intimate issue, 79-521, cert. granted, address stay

Category: 4