Opinion ID: 3011324
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: at 12 (Letter from Matthew M. Carmel, OSHA Data

Text: President, to DOL official Steve Newell, Oct. 29, 1996); see also A. at 5-6 (Complaint, First Count). OSHA Data's second request also sought information on LWDII rates. In contrast to the Count I request, which targeted information obtained via the Data Collection Initiative survey, the Count II request concerned information obtained during the DOL's inspections of approximately 7000 individual work sites.9 In addition to conducting the inspection, DOL compliance officers were directed to record injury and illness data from the establishments' Log 200 forms; this data was then recorded in a centralized DOL database, the Integrated Management Information System (IMIS). The database software would automatically calculate each establishment's LWDII rate from the information collected. OSHA Data sought the following information in its Count II request: [A] copy of the Lost Work Day Injury and Illness (LWDI [sic]) data calculated during OSHA enforcement inspections and entered into the Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) and current through September 30, 1996. . . . We specifically request the data include all captured fields of information associated with calculation of the LWDII such as the inspection activity number, number of work hours, reporting period and the LWDII value itself. A. at 32 (Letter from Matthew M. Carmel, OSHA Data President, to DOL official Bruce Beverage, Oct. 24, 1996); see also A. at 6-7 (Complaint, Second Count). _________________________________________________________________ 9. The industries that underwent these inspections were different from the industries covered by the Data Collection Initiative. Compare A. at 33 with A. at 16-17. See also DOL Supp. App. at 1. 5 The Count III request sought certain computerized information relating to the DOL onsite inspections themselves. The Count III request is limited to information collected in the 30 days immediately prior to creation of the computer file tape. OSHA Data alleges that this FOIA request was targeted specifically to address[DOL]'s new policy of withholding the most recent 30 days of information from the computer `derived' file supplied to FOIA requesters. OSHA Data Br. at 9; see also A. at 8-9 (Complaint, Third Count). The DOL does not admit that it has such a policy. See A. at 63 (Answer, Third Count); DOL Br. at 51-53. The Count III request seeks the following information: [A] copy of the sequential IMIS derived file. We specifically request the file contain all available data elements including the inspection, violation, administrative payment, hazardous substance, accident, related activity, debt, event history and optional segments for all inspection records up to and including the date of file tape creation. The requested file period of coverage is 30 days. A. at 46 (Letter from Matthew M. Carmel, OSHA Data President, to DOL official Bill Wright, Sept. 12, 1997); see also A. at 8-9 (Complaint, Third Count). The DOL denied the Count I and Count II requests 10 and, thereafter, OSHA Data lodged administrative appeals of these denials.11 See A. at 5, 7. After awaiting resolution of the appeals for over a year, OSHA Data filed a three-count complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, requesting an injunction preventing the DOL from withholding the records -- in effect, an _________________________________________________________________ 10. The DOL initially asserted grounds for withholding the records that are different from the grounds it now asserts. However, the agency may justify the withholding of documents under any applicable exemption to FOIA, even if it is not the exemption that was initially asserted. Cf. 5 U.S.C. S 552(a)(4)(B) (describing district court review of agency's FOIA decision). 11. The DOL did not rule on the Count III request, because the DOL maintains that it has provided the data in question in response to later FOIA requests by OSHA Data. 6 injunction compelling the DOL to produce the records pursuant to FOIA.12 The complaint also contained a request for reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs. The DOL moved to stay the matter as to Counts I and II, arguing that, because of potential issues of confidentiality, the agency was required to implement a process of notifying affected companies before it could finally determine whether the requested records were subject to disclosure under FOIA. The DOL asserted that this procedure was mandated by its own regulations, see 29 C.F.R. S 70.26(d), and that these costs, incurred in order to make a determination of whether disclosure was appropriate, were review costs. The DOL further contended that OSHA Data, as a commercial use requester of FOIA records, was required by statute to pay all review costs in connection with the request, and that these review costs would include the costs of notifying the companies and evaluating their responses.13 After an interim grant of the stay requested by the DOL,14 _________________________________________________________________ 12. OSHA Data later filed an amended complaint that included the nowmoot fourth count mentioned above. 13. The DOL projected these costs to total approximately $1.7 million. For the Count I request, the DOL estimated a cost of $1,554,250 -- $24,000 in mailing costs ($0.32 x 75,000 companies), $6,250 in preparing letters for mailing ($10/person/hour x 75,000 ö 120 envelopes/hour/person), $1,500,000 for staff time reviewing the submitters' responses ($20/person/hour x 75,000 ö 1 response/hour/person), and $24,000 for a second mailing. For the Count II request, the DOL estimated a cost of $145,063, using the same hourly rates for a base of 7,000 submitters. See DOL Supp. App. at 1. It is worth noting that these are projected rather than actual costs. Should it occur that many of the companies contacted would not wish to object to disclosure of the requested information, the actual costs might be much lower, and of course OSHA Data would be responsible only for the actual costs. 14. The DOL sought this stay to allow the agency the opportunity to contact the submitters of the information requested, so that the agency could determine whether this information fell under one of FOIA's nine exemptions to disclosure. This Motion to Stay was referred to Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S 636(b)(1)(A); Judge Cavanaugh granted the motion, ruling that the DOL was required to 7 the District Court ruled on the merits of OSHA Data's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counts III and IV, and on the DOL's Cross-Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment as to all counts. See A. at 321-50 (unpublished Letter-Opinion and Order of District Court, May 10, 1999). The District Court granted the DOL Motion to Dismiss as to all counts, and denied the OSHA Data Motion for Summary Judgment. The District Court found that OSHA Data, by stating its inability and/or unwillingness to pay the estimated $1.7 millionreview costs, had demonstrated that it was not able to meet the conditions required for the lifting of the stay. The District Court found that OSHA Data was required to pay the costs of notification in order to pursue its claim, and dismissed Counts I and II based on OSHA Data's stated inability to pay.15 See A. at 340-41. The District Court dismissed Counts III and IV as moot, reasoning that OSHA Data had already received the information requested in those counts. Although OSHA Data conceded that it had received the Count III information as a result of subsequent FOIA requests, OSHA Data had alleged that Count III presented a scenario that was capable of repetition, yet evading review,16 A. at 343, and as such should be exempted from the application of the mootness doctrine. The District Court found that OSHA Data had not met its burden of showing _________________________________________________________________ undertake the notification and that it was appropriate to charge OSHA Data the costs of notification and mailing, as well as the costs of evaluating responses, as review costs. See A. at 224-234. The District Court (Judge Alfred J. Lechner, Jr.) then affirmed the stay, interpreting it as a stay specifically of Counts I and II. 15. The District Court denied summary judgment to both parties, reasoning that there remained a genuine issue of fact as to whether the requested records did in fact fall under an exemption to FOIA. The District Court also rejected the DOL's argument that Counts I and II should be dismissed on the ground that nonpayment constituted a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The parties do not appeal these determinations. 16. Perhaps the classic example of such a scenario is Roe v. Wade. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 125 (1973) (quoting Southern Pac. Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911)). 8 an exception to the mootness doctrine.17 See A. at 347. OSHA Data now appeals the District Court's order.