Opinion ID: 3011324
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Mootness of Count III

Text: OSHA Data concedes that it has received the specific data that were the subject of the Count III request. Ordinarily, the receipt of the data would render Count III moot. See, e.g., National Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. NRC, 680 F.2d 810, 814 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (stating that a federal court is not empowered to decide moot questions . . . or to declare, for the government of future cases, principles or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before it) (quoting California v. San Pablo & Tulare R.R. Co., 149 U.S. 308, 314 (1893)) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, OSHA contends that Count III falls into the narrow category of controversies that are capable of repetition, yet evading review and thus constitute an exception from the application of the mootness doctrine. See Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., 478 U.S. 1, 6 (1986). In order to qualify for this exception, OSHA Data has the burden of meeting both parts of the following test:(1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again. United States v. Criden, 675 F.2d 550, 553 (3d Cir. 1982) (quoting Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982)) (additional citation and internal quotation marks omitted). For much the same reasons as the District Court, we conclude that OSHA Data has not satisfied the second part of that test. OSHA Data alludes in its brief to a DOL policy of withholding the last 30 days of information from the computer file tapes provided in response to FOIA requests for data on violations uncovered during workplace inspections. See OSHA Data Br. at 9. However, the only record evidence that might point to such a policy consists of two letters from OSHA Data to DOL officials. See A. at 41 (Letter from Matthew M. Carmel, President of OSHA Data, to DOL official Cathryn Goedert, Aug. 5, 1997); A. at 46 (Letter from Matthew M. Carmel to DOL official Bill Wright, 24 Sept. 12, 1997). The first letter states that a DOL employee had informed OSHA Data that there was a new policy of not providing inspection records for establishments that were issued violations during the 30 days prior to the tape creation date. A. at 41. OSHA Data has not provided any direct documentation of such a policy. Although OSHA surely need not prove, at the complaint stage, that such a policy exists, the mere allegation of an agency policy does not satisfy OSHA Data's burden of showing that it is reasonably likely to be subject to the 30-day blackout period in the future. Similarly, the second letter, which alludes to a previous DOL offer to exclude most requested information within the 30-day period, does not satisfy this burden. OSHA Data does not include in the record the letter from the DOL in which this offer was allegedly made. As the District Court observed: OSHA Data argues there are, and will continue to be, quarterly requests for information contained in the derived file. OSHA Data further argues that because the Department of Labor has not stated it will cease the practice of withholding the thirty day data, there is a reasonable expectation OSHA Data will be subject to the same action. Accordingly, OSHA Data asserts Count Three is not moot. OSHA Data, however, has failed to demonstrate that any of its future information requests will be denied as a result of the operation of the alleged thirty day exclusionary period.