Opinion ID: 289850
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Letters and documents exchanged by Grumman and the Board;

Text: 7 B. Inter-departmental and interagency communications between the Board and other government agencies with respect to Grumman's performance on its renegotiable contracts; 8 C. Communications between the Board and a firm holding a renegotiable contract, concerning Grumman's performance as a subcontractor; and 9 D. Intra-agency memoranda and communications consisting of advisory opinions, conclusions, recommendations, and analyses prepared by personnel and members of the Board. 13 10 The parties agree that the documents in category (A) are available for inspection; appellant also states that it does not seek access to the advisory memoranda encompassed by category (D). Thus the parties appear in an adversary posture only as to the 'performance reports' in categories (B) and (C). 11 Congress intended that 522 would make available to the general public any agency records 'which would routinely be disclosed to a private party through the discovery process in litigation with the agency.' 14 In Boeing Airplane Co. v. Coggeshall, 15 we held that the Board's investigatory and other factual reports were subject to discovery. Hence, the documents being sought by appellant are clearly available to it under the Act unless they are exempted by subsection (b). 12 The Board contends that such immunity from disclosure is provided by Exemption (4)'s protection of confidential commercial and financial information. This provision has been interpreted to encompass only information received from persons outside the Government. 16 We concur in this reading of the statute. 17 The plain language of the exemption-- it applies only to 'information obtained from any person' 18 -- is reenforced by the statutory history, which indicates that the exemption was not meant to allow agencies to render documents 'confidential' by passing them back and forth among themselves. 19 On the other hand, information which is confidential in the hands of one agency retains its protected character in the hands of agencies to which it is subsequently furnished. 20 On remand, the District Court will have to determine, through in camera inspection, 21 whether the inter-departmental communications involved in this case come within this narrow category. 22 13 This analysis does not apply, however, to the reports submitted by the prime contractor on Grumman's performance, since that material originated outside the Government. After examining those documents, the District Court must decide whether they contain commercial or financial information which the contractor would not reveal to the public and therefore are exempt from disclosure or are subject to release only after appropriate deletions have been made. 14 Reversed and remanded.