Opinion ID: 345561
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: confidentiality and production at situs

Text: 385 The District Court attached the following conditions to the disclosure of documents designated as confidential: 386 (1) The Secretary of the Federal Trade Commission is designated the custodian of the documents; 387 (2) The documents (and presumably any documents or memoranda derived therefrom) must be kept in a depository with access restricted to the FTC employees assigned to the investigation; 388 (3) Documents can only be removed from the depository or used for other purposes with the court's permission; and 389 (4) Upon the termination of the investigation, the documents (and presumably all copies of documents) must be returned to their owner. 173 390 The Trade Commission does not question the confidential nature of the documents it seeks disclosed. Rather, its position is that the FTCA and the Commission's Rules of Practice provide appellees with adequate protection. Quite to the contrary, the FTCA and the Rules of Practice merely state that the public disclosure of geophysical data or information and trade secrets is within the discretion of the Commission. The FTC's rules governing in camera orders, the release of confidential information, and requests for disclosure of records clearly indicate that the Trade Commission will decide ultimately whether records exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (as most of these records probably would be) will be disclosed. 174 391 The District Court was not required to rely on the unbounded discretion of the Trade Commission to keep the producers' estimates confidential. 175 In addition, we fail to see how the minor protective procedures fashioned by the court will impose any substantial burden on the FTC's investigation 176 especially since the parties have agreed that this portion of the court's order may be modified by the addition of the following provisos: 392 Provided that, nothing in this order shall prohibit disclosure of materials produced by respondents to commissioners of the FTC in connection with the performance of said commissioners' official functions; nothing in this order shall prohibit employees of the Trade Commission from referring to or relying on any of the materials produced by respondents in connection with the presenting of any recommendation to the Trade Commission for or against issuance of a complaint; and nothing in this order shall prohibit the Trade Commission from referring to or relying on any of the materials produced by respondents in connection with any determination for or against issuance of any complaint based on such materials. (P 8(a)) 393 In the event the Trade Commission desires to release any confidential material, it shall so notify the Court and each affected respondent, specifying the material it desires to release, and each such respondent may, within ten days of receipt of such notice, file with the Court opposition to such release. The respondents shall bear the burden of proving the material is entitled to confidential treatment upon notice that the Trade Commission intends to release any such material. No such data may, however, be released until this Court shall enter its order permitting such release. (P 8(b)) 394 Provided that, in the event the Trade Commission issues a formal complaint, at the conclusion of the investigation, the confidential material produced by respondents may be offered and received in evidence in the complaint proceeding, provided that each affected respondent shall be given opportunity to request appropriate confidential treatment of such material. (P 8(c)) 177 395 We would adopt these modifications (as the majority opinion does to some extent, e. g., the ten day notice requirement) and hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it attached the conditions listed above to the disclosure of information by all seven appellees. 396 The Trade Commission also complains about the option permitting the production of documents for inspection where they are stored. The Supreme Court in CAB v. Hermann upheld the enforcement of a subpoena with appropriate provisions for assuring the minimum interference with the conduct of the business of respondents. 178 The Second Circuit has also upheld a similar provision. It noted that (r)equiring records to be produced away from the place where they are ordinarily kept may impose an unreasonable and unnecessary hardship which in itself would make the issuance of the subpoena, otherwise proper, arbitrary and capricious. 179 Since the number of documents to be produced will be quite large, it is not inappropriate to relieve appellees of some of the expense and burden entailed by permitting them the option of producing documents where they were stored 180 and requiring the Trade Commission to copy and transport to Washington any documents they consider useful. Adding the one agreed-upon modification, we would affirm the District Court's in situs restriction.