Opinion ID: 342519
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the facts and the threshold issues

Text: 19 By letter dated October 6, 1975, Congressman John E. Moss, writing in his capacity as a Member of Congress, requested the FTC to disclose data which detailed the location of Ashland's natural gas reserves, and which Ashland had submitted to the FTC. The request was treated as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., and was denied (J.A. 32-35). Subsequently, on October 29, 1975, this time in his official capacity as Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Mr. Moss again requested the data, to which the Commission responded that the data would be supplied (J.A. 36-39). Ashland filed this case in the District Court on November 24, 1975, seeking an injunction against Commission compliance with the request. On December 2, 1975, the full House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce issued a subpoena duces tecum to the Commission Chairman for the data. On February 2, 1976, the District Court granted the Commission's motion to dismiss, considering Ashland's argument that Commission disclosure is barred by 15 U.S.C. § 46(f), but holding that there had been no showing of irreparable harm (J.A. 428-49). Ashland appeals the February 2 order. Mr. Moss, as intervening defendant, moved the District Court to amend the February 2, 1976, ruling to delete language alleged to imply that the Subcommittee or Mr. Moss had in the past breached obligations to handle information confidentially. The motion was denied on February 9, 1976 (J.A. 532). Mr. Moss appeals that order. 20 15 U.S.C. § 46(f) provides that the Commission shall have the power: 21 To make public from time to time such portions of the information obtained by it . . . except trade secrets and names of customers, as it shall deem expedient in the public interest; and to make annual and special reports to the Congress and to submit therewith recommendations for additional legislation; and to provide for the publication of its reports and decisions in such form and manner as may be best adapted for public information and use. (Emphasis added). 22 Although Ashland alleges some past violations of confidentiality by defendants and states that there has been no promise or commitment that Ashland's trade secret data would be given confidential treatment, (J.A. 446), these allegations do not constitute a substantial showing that the materials in the possession of the Commission will necessarily be made public if turned over to Congress. Therefore, it is not necessary to decide what application, if any, 15 U.S.C. § 46(f) might have if it were evident that Congress intended to make public trade secrets. At a minimum it is clear that absent such a showing 15 U.S.C. § 46(f) does not preclude the FTC from transmitting trade secrets to Congress, pursuant to subpoena. 23 Since the District Court's opinion is not to be read as finding Congressman Moss ever broke a promise of confidentiality, there is no occasion to address the grounds of his separate appeal. 24 However, this leaves two issues for resolution: whether the subpoena itself was validly issued, and whether, if the subpoena is invalid, the House subsequently ratified the subpoena.