Opinion ID: 490507
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ITC's Standing on Appeal

Text: 5 Although neither party raised the issue, we first consider whether the ITC has standing to appeal the order. The ITC admitted below that the protective order would not harm its anti-dumping investigation, Hearing Transcript (Hear.Tr.) at 10, Tenneco Br.App. at 33, but nonetheless claims injury from the issuance of the order. The ITC argues that the order will make future investigations more difficult, because subjects of information requests will be less likely to come forward with information if they think the ITC itself cannot adequately protect the confidentiality of such information. Similarly, the ITC contends that the order will give rise to an implication that it would not on its own abide by 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677f(b), see note 3, infra, which it claims protects the confidentiality of information acquired through its investigations. 6 These claims of injury do not suffice to give the Commission standing to appear before us. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated that a mere claim that challenged action will have a chilling effect on future activities does not suffice for standing. Meese v. Keene, --- U.S. ----, ----, 107 S.Ct. 1862, 1867, 95 L.Ed.2d 415 (1987). The ITC's contentions regarding injury boil down to a fear that its future investigations will be chilled; such unspecific fear of future injury cannot suffice to provide standing under Article III. See, e.g., Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1000, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 2784, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (1982) (threat of future injury must be sufficiently substantial). 7 We find, however, that the Commission does have standing to pursue this appeal, for a different reason. The protective order itself alters the relations between the parties, placing the ITC under a legal compulsion as to its procedures regarding release of the information that it was not previously subject to. In this way, the protective order in this case creates a legal obligation with attendant sanctions for its violation that impacts on the ITC sufficiently to cause a legal injury cognizable for Article III standing purposes. 1 B. Existence of a Case or Controversy 8 The Commission argues that because the parties essentially agree that the questionnaire information is confidential and may not be disclosed, no case or controversy was presented to the District Court and thus it had no jurisdiction to enter the protective order. Despite what appears to be a good faith belief on the part of the ITC that Tenneco's questionnaire replies are ultimately protected by federal statutes, see also part III.C., infra, the Commission nonetheless vigorously opposed the issuance of a protective order, which Tenneco equally strongly supported. It is clear that when the parties do not desire precisely the same result an Article III case or controversy may be present. GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union of the United States, Inc., 445 U.S. 375, 382-83, 100 S.Ct. 1194, 1199-1200, 63 L.Ed.2d 467 (1980). In GTE Sylvania, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Consumers Union agreed that GTE's information should be released. However, the CPSC believed it could not release the materials while a federal district court injunction probibited it from doing so, while Consumers Union argued that since it had not been a party to GTE's injunctive lawsuit, its rights to seek disclosure were not implicated by the injunction. The Court held that [t]he [CPSC] and [Consumers Union] sharply disagree on this question.... It cannot be said, therefore, that the parties desire precisely the same result. Id. at 383, 100 S.Ct. at 1200 (internal quotation omitted). 9 Similarly here, the ITC and Tenneco sharply disagree on the question of whether a protective order is necessary to guarantee the nondisclosure both parties agree is appropriate under federal law. In short, the parties agree on the end, but not the means to that end. Regardless of the underlying agreement as to the substantive standards for disclosure of confidential information, the disagreement surrounding the need for a protective order thus indicates that a real dispute exists.