Opinion ID: 532508
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of Exemption 5 Criteria

Text: 24 The Institute argues, and the District Court concluded, that because the Journal is neither part of HHS nor one of HHS' consultants, the Review Letter is not entitled to Exemption 5 protections. See Brief for Appellee at 6-11; Formaldehyde, slip op. at 3-4, reprinted in J.A. 41-42. In support of this argument the Institute asserts that the contours of 'agency' for the purposes of Exemption Five are limited to cases in which an agency retains a temporary consultant or in which other government entities report to the agency. See Brief for Appellee at 8. It relies on Ryan and Donovan for the proposition that Exemption 5 is limited to cases where the agency solicits the materials. See id. The Institute also asserts, again relying on Ryan, that the documents at issue here did not arise from the agency deliberative process, see id. at 9, that they were neither predecisional nor deliberative in nature, see id. at 11-14, and that HHS was unable to state any policy decision that is the subject of deliberation, see id. at 12. We now address these arguments in light of the cases discussed above. 25 First, there is no doubt that the Review Letter is predecisional, in that it is a recommendation (with suggestions) regarding an article's suitability for publication. The Review Letter aids CDC authors who must decide whether and to what extent to edit an article, and it assists agency decisionmakers who are authorized to determine whether and where to publish an article. See Roberts Declaration paragraphs 9, 11, reprinted in J.A. 18-19; Tabor Declaration p 5, reprinted in J.A. 35. The Review Letter thus easily qualifies as a predecisional document under Grumman, see 421 U.S. at 184, 95 S.Ct. at 1500, and Coastal States, see 617 F.2d at 866. 26 As to the question regarding the nature of the relationship between the outside reviewers and CDC, Ryan established and Donovan recently iterated that inter-agency and intra-agency are not rigidly exclusive terms, but rather embrace any agency document that is part of the deliberative process. See Ryan, 617 F.2d at 790; Donovan, 830 F.2d at 1161-62. Thus, both the Institute and the District Court err in focusing on the absence of any formal relationship between the Journal's reviewers and HHS. As noted above, [w]hether the author is a regular agency employee or a temporary consultant is irrelevant; the pertinent element is the role, if any, that the document plays in the process of agency deliberations. Donovan, 830 F.2d at 1161. If the Review Letter is deliberative in character, then it may come within the confines of Exemption 5 notwithstanding its creation by an outsider. See id. at 1161-62. The pertinent issue here is what harm, if any, the Review Letter's release would do to HHS' deliberative process. 27 [T]he first step in determining whether disclosure would harm the deliberative process is to examine the context in which the materials are used. Wolfe, 839 F.2d at 774. Accordingly, we must discern what role publication in scientific journals plays in HHS' deliberative process. On this point, Congress has instructed the Secretary of HHS to 28 conduct ... and encourage, cooperate with, and render assistance to other appropriate public authorities, scientific institutions, and scientists in the conduct of, and promote the coordination of, research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies relating to the causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of physical and mental diseases and impairments of man. 29 42 U.S.C. Sec. 241(a) (Supp. V 1988). Further, Congress has also authorized the Secretary to collect and make available through publications and other appropriate means, information as to, and the practical application of, such research and other activities. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 241(a)(1) (1982). 30 Thus, Congress has directed HHS to make precisely the kind of deliberative decision HHS made as a result of a process that involved HHS' receipt of the Review Letter. Indeed, a deliberative decision by HHS (through its constituent CDC) was central to the process of journal submission and review at issue here: namely, the deliberative decision about whether and in what form to publish the Report in the name of the agency. 31 The Institute acknowledges that, under Ryan and Donovan, the materials an agency solicits are paradigmatically entitled to Exemption 5 coverage. See Brief for Appellee at 8. The Institute argues, however, that in this case there can be no Exemption 5 coverage because the outside reviews were not solicited by HHS. We reject this position as too short-sighted in its view of Exemption 5. For one thing, it is an undisputed fact that receipt of comments [from outside reviewers] is an expected result in the submission of an article for publication. See Formaldehyde, slip op. at 3, reprinted in J.A. 41; see also Tabor Declaration p 5, reprinted in J.A. 35. Furthermore, it is undisputed that reviewers' comments are expected to be confidential. Formaldehyde, slip op. at 3, reprinted in J.A. 41. The agency does not solicit reviews in the sense that it contracts to receive them, but it does actively seek to do business with journals from which reviews are both expected and then used by CDC to determine whether and in what form to publish articles in the name of the agency. This arrangement reflects a mutual understanding between the agency and journals that provide confidential reviews regarding how the agency will use the reviews. The existence of such an arrangement is more than enough to hold that the Review Letter is a part of the deliberative process of the agency. 32 Finally, on the record in this case, it is indisputable that disclosure of reviewers' comments would seriously harm the deliberative process. For example, HHS submitted the affidavit of Dr. Joseph E. Rall, who is Deputy Director for Intramural Research of the National Institutes of Health, to attest to the harms of disclosure. Dr. Rall is a research scientist who throughout his distinguished career has published many articles in scientific journals, administered research for the federal government, served as editor for two scientific journals and served as a reviewer for others. See Rall Declaration paragraphs 1-2, reprinted in J.A. 27 (with attachment). His affidavit provided a detailed account of the reasons for which scientific journals have a review process in which both reviewers' names and comments are shared only with the journal and the prospective author. See id. paragraphs 4-5, reprinted in J.A. 28-29. He stated that the comments of the reviewers are considered to be advice, constructive criticism and guidance with respect to revision of the manuscript so as to make the manuscript worthy of publication. This advice is generally relied upon by the author(s). Id. p 6, reprinted in J.A. 29. Additionally, he asserted thatthe normal workings of review and publication of scientific articles would, in my opinion, be seriously compromised if comments of manuscript reviewers were to be released to the public. This would cause harm to government agencies in at least two ways: Government employees who must publish as part of their job responsibilities would no longer receive the candid, constructive advice that contributes to the author's efforts to produce the best product possible. The journals, which have a mutual relationship with government scientists, would suffer because they could not be assured that the articles submitted by government scientists were the best possible product. In my opinion, release of reviewers' comments would have a chilling effect on any comments submitted. Indeed, if reviewers thought that their comments would be available to competitors or opponents of the author(s), they might slant or soften their statements if they believed the article to be generally good. Id. p 7, reprinted in J.A. 30. 3 33 This and other like declarations offered by HHS were not contested by the Institute. Thus, the undisputed factual record clearly establishes that HHS personnel acting in light of the agency's Congressional mandate must regularly rely on the comments of expert scientists to help them evaluate the readiness of agency work for publication. In that sense they must rely on the opinions and recommendations of temporary consultants. Ryan, 617 F.2d at 789. There is also unrefuted evidence in the record that release of reviewers' editorial comments would very likely have a chilling effect on either the candor of potential reviewers of government-submitted articles or on the ability of the government to have its work considered for review at all. Furthermore, a government author is likely to be less willing to submit her work to a refereed journal at all if critical reviews could come to light somewhere down the line. This would result in the publication of inferior work in (presumably) inferior and less widely circulated journals, regardless of whether the identity of the critic was made known. As the Supreme Court has said with respect to Exemption 5,  '[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances ... to the detriment of the decisionmaking process.'  Sears, Roebuck, 421 U.S. at 150-51, 95 S.Ct. at 1516-17 (quoting United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 705, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 3106, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974)) (emphasis in original) (emendations in original). Manifestly, the Court continued, the ultimate purpose of this long-recognized privilege is to prevent injury to the quality of agency decisions. Id. 421 U.S. at 151, 95 S.Ct. at 1516.