Opinion ID: 555040
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: standard of review and proceedings on remand

Text: 59 Although the district court correctly held that the APA authorized judicial review of appellants' recordkeeping guidelines and directives, it denied appellants' motion for summary judgment, pending further development of the record, on the grounds that a reasonable factfinder, surveying the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, would [not] necessarily conclude that the guidelines are adequate. Armstrong, 721 F.Supp. at 354. Appellants challenge this denial of summary judgment. Because we agree that the present record is inadequate to determine the reasonableness of the guidelines, we remand for further proceedings on the merits of the adequacy of the guidelines. 13 60 At the time summary judgment was denied, the record contained copies of several documents informing the NSC staff of their obligation to create and maintain hard copy records before erasing the PROFS tapes--e.g., the White House Office Staff Manual, the EOP Records Management Program manual, and other memoranda concerning records management. It is not clear from the record, however, whether these documents comprise the total guidance given to NSC staff regarding their recordkeeping responsibilities or whether, as plaintiffs asked in interrogatories, there are other informal, supplementary guidance. For example, how did appellants respond to questions about whether particular documents or types of documents constitute records that must be maintained? Was any additional guidance provided in staff meetings in which recordkeeping responsibilities were discussed? Did appellants consistently advise their staff that particular types of documents--such as PROFS notes or calendars--are or are not records? 61 With answers to such questions, which can be obtained either through affidavits or testimony, the record should contain sufficient information for the district court to determine whether the NSC recordkeeping guidelines and directives satisfy the NSC's statutory obligations to make and preserve records documenting the functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the NSC, 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3101, and to ensure that these records are destroyed only pursuant to disposal schedules approved by the Archivist, id. Secs. 3105(a), 3303a. Cf. Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 143, 93 S.Ct. 1241, 1244, 36 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973). On remand, therefore, the district court should determine whether the NSC's guidelines and directives are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2)(A), because they permit the destruction of record material that should be maintained. 14