Task: songer_discover

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the court's interpretation of rules relating to discovery or other issues related to obtaining evidence favor the appellant?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

PER CURIAM.
Appellants’ complaint asks a declaration that Sections 5 through 11 of the Communist Control Act of 1954, 68 Stat. 775, [50 U.S.C.A. §§ 782, 784, 789, 791, 792a, 793, 844,] are invalid, and an injunction to restrain the Attorney General and the Subversive Activities Control Board from enforcing these sections against the plaintiff Union. The complaint says the Attorney General threatened to enforce them immediately, by filing a petition with the Board, and that irreparable harm to the Union and its members would result.
The plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment for the defendants. Pending the appeal, the Attorney General petitioned the Board “for an order, after appropriate proceedings, determining that the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America is a Communist-infiltrated organization as defined by Section 3 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, as amended by the Communist Control Act of 1954.”
We see no pertinent exception to the usual rule that a court will not interfere with administrative proceedings, which are not on their face incapable of affording due process, before final administrative action adverse to the complainant has been taken. Communist Party v. McGrath, D.C., 96 F.Supp. 47.
Affirmed.

Question: Did the court's interpretation of rules relating to discovery or other issues related to obtaining evidence favor the appellant?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D