Opinion ID: 2241272
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Oral Histories

Text: The record here leads us to conclude, subject to the qualification discussed below, that the oral histories are not protected from disclosure by either the privacy or the intra-agency exception. We infer from the record that the oral histories were exactly what their name implies  spoken words recorded for the benefit of posterity  and that the Department intended, and the people interviewed for these histories understood or reasonably should have understood, that the words spoken were destined for public disclosure. If this inference is correct, the privacy exception obviously has no application here. Nor does the intra-agency exception apply where, though agency employees are speaking to each other, the agency and the employees understand and intend that a tape of the conversation will be made public. The point of the intra-agency exception, as we explained above, is to permit the internal exchange of candid advice and opinions between agency employees. The exception is not applicable to words that are intended to be passed on verbatim to the world at large. The record evidence about the purpose and origin of the oral histories comes largely from an affidavit submitted by a representative of the Fire Department. The affidavit adopts the title oral histories, previously used in Dwyer's request, to identify these materials, and says that after September 11 the Fire Department decided to promptly record the recollections of Fire Department personnel who were present at the World Trade Center site on that day. These recollections, the affidavit says, were collected for two purposes: to be an invaluable historical record, in addition to assisting in any investigations or assessments of the incident. The Fire Department's affidavit also says that all interviewees were assured that the interviews would be held in complete confidence. This statement, if true, would be highly relevant to this case  but it was later acknowledged to be in error. The parties stipulated that the Fire Department has withdrawn its claim that each of these interviews (`oral histories') with Fire Dept. personnel was recorded with a promise of confidentiality to the interviewee, since it has come to the [Department's] attention that only some interviews included such a promise. After the stipulation, the Fire Department made no attempt to substantiate even the claim that some interviewees were promised confidentiality. The Department does not now rely on the existence of any such promise. While the record is less clear than it might be, it establishes that the interviews were intended as an historical record  which implies that the interviews would be disclosed to the public. If that is the case, they should not be protected from disclosure merely because they also were, as the Fire Department says, intended to be used in investigations or assessments. The record does not show that any interviewee was given a promise of confidentiality or led to believe that his or her words would be kept secret. Thus, the best inference is that the Department intended, and the interviewees knew or should have known, that the words spoken in the interviews would become a public record. If this is not true the burden was on the Department  which is in possession of the relevant facts  to prove otherwise ( see Matter of Newsday, Inc. v Empire State Dev. Corp., 98 NY2d 359, 362 [2002]; Matter of Mantica v New York State Dept. of Health, 94 NY2d 58, 61 [1999]). The Department has not met that burden. This logic leads to the conclusion that all of the oral histories are discloseable under FOIL. We add one qualification, however, because we are given pause by the Fire Department's insistence that the oral histories contain numerous statements which are exceedingly personal in nature, describing the interviewees' intimate emotions such as fears, concern for themselves and loved ones, and horror at what they saw and heard. If indeed some firefighters made such statements in what they were led to believe was a private setting, it may be unfair to invade their privacy based solely on the inadequacy of the evidence the Department has submitted. We therefore direct that the Department be given an opportunity, on remand, to call to Supreme Court's attention specific portions of the oral histories which, in the Fire Department's view, would cause serious pain or embarrassment to interviewees if they were disclosed. Supreme Court should then consider, following an in camera inspection if necessary, whether those portions of the oral histories are subject to the privacy exception, taking into account any further evidence that may be submitted on the question of whether the interviewees thought the interviews were private.