Opinion ID: 532508
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicable Exemption 5 Criteria

Text: 9 Under Exemption 5, an agency 2 may withhold from disclosure inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(b)(5) (1988). Courts have construed this exemption to encompass the protections traditionally afforded certain documents pursuant to evidentiary privileges in the civil discovery context, including  'materials which would be protected under the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, or the executive deliberative process privilege. '  Taxation With Representation v. IRS, 646 F.2d 666, 676 (D.C.Cir.1981) (quoting Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 862 (D.C.Cir.1980)) (citations omitted); see also National Labor Relations Bd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 149, 95 S.Ct. 1504, 1515, 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975) (Exemption 5 protects documents that private party could not obtain in civil discovery). 10 In order to qualify for Exemption 5 protection, an agency's materials must be both predecisional and a part of the deliberative process. See Sears, Roebuck, 421 U.S. at 151-52, 95 S.Ct. at 1516-17 (discussing predecision criterion) (citing cases); Renegotiation Bd. v. Grumman Aircraft, 421 U.S. 168, 184, 95 S.Ct. 1491, 1500, 44 L.Ed.2d 57 (1975) (same); Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 866 (D.C.Cir.1980) (privilege variously described as predecisional or deliberative); Wolfe v. HHS, 839 F.2d 768, 774 (D.C.Cir.1988) (privilege limited to materials which are both predecisional and deliberative). A document may be predecisional and still fail to fall within the confines of Exemption 5 if it is not part of the deliberative process. In other words, while these two criteria are not mutually exclusive, neither are they coterminous in their reach. 11 A predecisional  document is one prepared in order to assist an agency decisionmaker in arriving at his decision, Grumman Aircraft, 421 U.S. at 184, 95 S.Ct. at 1500, and may include recommendations, draft documents, proposals, suggestions, and other subjective documents which reflect the personal opinions of the writer rather than the policy of the agency, Coastal States, 617 F.2d at 866. A predecisional document is a part of the deliberative process, if the disclosure of [the] materials would expose an agency's decisionmaking process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the agency's ability to perform its functions. Dudman Communications Corp. v. Department of the Air Force, 815 F.2d 1565, 1568 (D.C.Cir.1987). 12 Several of our cases have described the scope of Exemption 5. In Ryan v. Department of Justice, 617 F.2d 781 (D.C.Cir.1980), for example, we held that congressional responses to Justice Department questionnaires are protected from disclosure under Exemption 5, even though members of Congress are not within the compass of the term agency under FOIA. The exemption, we explained, 13 was created to protect the deliberative process of the government, by ensuring that persons in an advisory role would be able to express their opinions freely to agency decision-makers without fear of publicity. In the course of its day-to-day activities, an agency often needs to rely on the opinions and recommendations of temporary consultants, as well as its own employees. Such consultations are an integral part of its deliberative process; to conduct this process in public view would inhibit frank discussion of policy matters and likely impair the quality of decisions. 14 Id. at 789-90 (citations omitted). We have recognized that FOIA exemptions are to be construed as narrow[ly] as [is] 'consistent with efficient Government operation.'  Id. at 790 (quoting S.Rep.No. 813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 9 (1965)); accord FBI v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615, 621, 102 S.Ct. 2054, 2059, 72 L.Ed.2d 376 (1982). Nonetheless, as Ryan says, it is unquestionably true that 15 efficient government operation requires open discussions among all government policy-makers and advisors, whether those giving advice are officially part of the agency or are solicited to give advice only for specific projects. Congress apparently did not intend inter-agency and intra-agency to be rigidly exclusive terms, but rather to include any agency document that is part of the deliberative process. 16 Ryan, 617 F.2d at 790. 17 In CNA Financial Corp. v. Donovan, 830 F.2d 1132 (D.C.Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 977, 108 S.Ct. 1270, 99 L.Ed.2d 481 (1988), we noted and followed the approach enunciated in Ryan. As we pointed out: 18 courts have repeatedly found that a privilege attaches to reports of outsiders commissioned by an agency to perform agency work, when such reports would be protected if compiled within the agency itself. Whether the author is a regular agency employee or a temporary consultant is irrelevant; the pertinent element is the role, if any, that the document plays in the process of agency deliberations. If information communicated is deliberative in character it is privileged from disclosure, notwithstanding its creation by an outsider. 19 Id. at 1161-62 (citations omitted). Moreover, we stated, federal agencies occasionally will encounter problems outside their ken, and it clearly is preferable that they enlist the help of outside experts skilled at unravelling their knotty complexities. Id. at 1162 (citation omitted). 20 Similarly, in Russell v. Department of the Air Force, 682 F.2d 1045 (D.C.Cir.1982), we allowed the Air Force to use Exemption 5 to withhold portions of a manuscript of a history that it later published without those portions. We stated--quite instructively for the instant case--that [t]he policies embodied in [Exemption 5] are as applicable to the [agency's] editorial review process as they are to other agency deliberations that precede agency decisions. Id. at 1049. 21 Finally, in Dudman we held that Exemption 5 prevented a radio broadcaster from using FOIA section 552, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552 (1988), to obtain a draft manuscript history of the Air Force role in Vietnam. Reaffirming Russell's analysis, we concluded in Dudman that disclosure of editorial judgments--for example, decisions to insert or delete material or to change a draft's focus or emphasis--would stifle the creative thinking and candid exchange of ideas necessary to produce good historical work. Id. at 1569. Summing up a discussion of much of this court's Exemption 5 teachings, we observed that 22 release of materials plausibly labelled deliberative will occasionally reveal nothing about an agency deliberative process.... Conversely, the release of materials plausibly labelled factual will occasionally reveal much about that process.... Courts therefore began to focus less on the nature of the materials and more on the effect of the materials' release: the key question in Exemption 5 cases became whether the disclosure of materials would expose an agency's decisionmaking process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the agency's ability to perform its functions. 23 815 F.2d at 1568.