Opinion ID: 311379
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Documents Sought by the NCTA

Text: 13 As a consequence of the Commission's midnight production of most of the requested materials, after the close of the rulemaking but prior to the first hearing in the District Court, only three of the categories remained to be considered by the Court. 11 Since the District Court's ruling does not indicate the grounds on which it based its grant of summary judgment, we must examine the record on each of these categories.
14 The February Notice stated that the total cost of regulation was that stated in the Commission's budget for the relevant year. 12 Thus, the NCTA's request to inspect documents was phrased in terms of classes of documents that supported the budget and the allocation of budgeted costs among the regulated industries. The first two categories requested were: 15 1. The supportive documents used to arrive at the Commission's budget for fiscal year 1971; 16 2. The documents, listings and records used to determine the direct and indirect cost to the Government of the privileges granted the CATV industry for fiscal year 1971. 13 17 Access to the first group of documents would permit the NCTA to check the accuracy of the Commission's breakdown of its costs. Access to the second would enable it to determine which parts of the budget had been assigned to the cost of CATV regulation, and compare them with the budget breakdown to determine whether all of the costs assigned to CATV were consistent with the budget. By adding together the costs listed under the second category, the NCTA would be able to challenge both the fairness of the charge and the accuracy of the Commission's addition. 18 In response to the first item, the Commission provided the NCTA with a copy of its budget request, a document prepared for the Bureau of the Budget. The request itemized the Commission's proposed expenditures for fiscal year 1971, but requested fifty percent more money than the Bureau finally cleared for submission to Congress as the budget. The Commission produced nothing in response to the second item. 19 At the hearing in the District Court, the Commission produced the head of its budget office for examination by the NCTA. Asked for an explanation of the Commission's procedures, he testified that he had prepared the budget request from a variety of documents submitted by the Commission's various organizational units, in accordance with a memorandum of instruction from the Commission itself. He further testified that these documents were still in the possession of the Commission, but he argued that these were not supporting documents to the final budget, apparently on the theory that the budget request had intervened. The latter, he said, is really the supportive document for the Congressional budget. 20 The second request was for the documents that supported the assignment of part of the Commission's budgeted costs to CATV. The Commission's witness testified that there were no such documents. He said that he had compiled the relevant data from the budget by using yellow sheets of paper and adding machine tapes, and had preserved only the final totals. These, he testified, were the figures included in the March Notice. The NCTA avowed that it could not duplicate the Commission's figures by this means. While we can sympathize with this statement, for the reason that there appear to be contradictions in this account of the Commission's procedures, 14 we think that the Commission has adequately shown that there exist no documents in the category specified in the second request.
21 The Commission produced the official who had originally refused the NCTA's request for inspection to testify on the request for documents, listings and records used to determine the 'value to the recipient' of the privileges granted by the Commission. Adhering generally to the affidavit he had filed in support of the motion for summary judgment, this witness testified that the Commission itself, after receiving from its budget office a figure for the total cost factor for each industry, worked from this to obtain the fee schedule by taking account of statutorily designated factors, including value to the recipient. 22 He stated that, as set forth in his letter to the NCTA on behalf of the Commission, the Commission had relied upon the knowledge and financial aspects of the communications industry acquired over the years from vast numbers of confidential financial statements, confidential staff memoranda, and various trade publications. While asserting that the Commission had only relied on them in part for its noncost adjustments, he did testify that the Commission still had these documents. He added that the NCTA had been denied them because the request was so indefinite that it was difficult to identify and assemble without totally unreasonable expenditure of Commission manpower. Also, he said, some of the documents were confidential. Elaborating with respect to the internal memoranda, he said: 23 [Q. W]ith respect to the approach taken, the degree used, is there a conclusion reached [in the memoranda] as to the approach as to the degree of value with respect to the CATV industry, all of them mentioned in the Commission's rule making proposal? Were any factual conclusions reached that were put on paper? 24 A. It's very difficult to distinguish between actual conclusions and an opinion of the writer, an advocacy of a certain point of view. This is a very sensitive program and there were some very strongly held views amongst the staff and amongst the Commissioners; and these internal staff memoranda contain these views and these advocacies. 15 25 Insofar as the NCTA's request went to the trade publications and the confidential financial statements, no further testimony was taken. Since the witness had testified that no financial statements had been received from the CATV industry, it is possible that the NCTA does not want to inspect them. Indeed, the Commission's affidavit broadly asserted that CATV is NCTA's sole concern-although this could either be a representation of NCTA's position or a claim, contrary to the Act, that NCTA needed a more direct interest to support a right to inspection. 26 But, since the NCTA could hardly comment on the adjustments for value to the recipient without knowing the comparative status of other assessed industries, the NCTA's request seems more likely to encompass all of the Commission's supporting documents. And, since the actual wording of the request included all of the documents, the question whether they must be produced remains.