Opinion ID: 375887
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the applicability of foia exemption 5

Text: 24 We proceed now to consider whether the requested documents fall within Exemption 5 of the FOIA. The district court did not decide this issue, since it considered the agency records issue a sufficient basis on which to dispose of the case. An appellate court normally does not give consideration to issues that were neither raised nor decided below; 24 in this case, however, the Exemption 5 issue was raised and briefed in summary judgment motions before the district court. On those portions of the Exemption 5 issue that we decide today, we do not believe there is any doubt as to the proper resolution of the case, and the delay of extensive further proceedings in district court could render appellants' efforts futile. Thus it is fully appropriate for us to proceed to the Exemption 5 issue. 25 25 Exemption 5 applies to 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. 26 Appellants argue that since the documents at issue here were submitted to the Department of Justice by Senators, who are not agencies within the meaning of the FOIA, the documents cannot be termed inter-agency or intra-agency. 26 When interpreted in light of its purpose, however, the language of Exemption 5 clearly embraces this situation. The exemption 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. 27 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. 27 We start from the proposition that FOIA exemptions are to be interpreted narrowly. The Senate Committee attempted to keep Exemption 5 as narrow as was consistent with efficient Government operation. 28 Unquestionably, 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. We cannot overlook the fact that the documents here were generated by an initiative from the Department of Justice, i. e., the questionnaire sent out by the Department to the Senators. The Senators replied to the questionnaire. The questionnaire plus replies must correspond in origin and process to literally millions of documents and memoranda of various kinds on a myriad of subjects which repose in the files of the executive departments and independent agencies, i. e., memoranda which were created by someone outside the executive branch but in response to an initiative from the executive branch. 29 When an agency record is submitted by outside consultants as part of the deliberative process, and it was solicited by the agency, we find it entirely reasonable to deem the resulting document to be an intra-agency memorandum for purposes of determining the applicability of Exemption 5. This common sense interpretation of intra-agency to accommodate the realities of the typical agency deliberative process has been consistently followed by the courts. 30 28 Exemption 5 protects only those memoranda which would not normally be discoverable in civil litigation against an agency. 31 The standard of what is discoverable in civil litigation against an agency, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, indicates that purely factual material which is severable from the policy advice contained in a document, and which would not compromise the confidential remainder of the document, must be disclosed in an FOIA suit. 32 This court has further elaborated the standard for determining which segments of an advisory document are disclosable under Exemption 5. We have held that factual segments are protected from disclosure as not being purely factual if the manner of selecting or presenting those facts would reveal the deliberate process, 33 or if the facts are inextricably intertwined with the policy-making process. 34 The Supreme Court has substantially endorsed this standard. 35 29 As an additional ground, appellants argue that advisory material in the questionnaires should be disclosed if it represents a final decision rather than interim advice. Exemption 5 does not apply to final actions of agencies, in the sense of statements of policy and final opinions which have the force of law or which explain actions an agency has already taken. 36 Further, Exemption 5 applies only to communications before the adoption of an agency policy; communications that promulgate or implement an established policy are not privileged. 37 In the present case, however, the communications all precede the adoption of any agency policy i. e., the Attorney General's evaluation of selection processes and transmittal of his own recommendations to the President and also precede the final action on nominations that can only be taken by the President with consent of the Senate. That an individual Senator may have taken final action by deciding which potential nominees he will recommend, as urged by appellants, is not material to whether the documents constitute a final opinion or action of an agency. Hence finality cannot justify disclosure of the questionnaire answers in this case. 30 We conclude that the requested documents are exempt from FOIA disclosure under Exemption 5, except for factual segments which do not reveal the deliberative process and are not intertwined with the policy-making process. On remand the district court will determine which segments are disclosable under this standard. Because expedition is necessary in this case, we comment on those aspects of disclosability that are clear on the record before us. 31 The questionnaires sent by the Attorney General to the Senators asked for the following information: 32 1. Describe the effort which was made to identify qualified candidates. 33 2. Describe the process by which all persons identified and interested were considered? 34 3. How many persons were considered? 35 4. With respect to each person recommended, does he or she meet each of the standards set forth in Section 2 of the Executive Order? 36 5. With respect to each person recommended, submit a copy of any questionnaire or resume of biographical information furnished by that person. 6. If a nominating commission was used: 37 (a) how was the commission appointed? 38 (b) how many persons were on the commission? 39 (c) how many of the members were female? 40 (d) how many of the members were of a minority race? 41 (e) how many of the members were non-lawyers? 42 Some segments of Senators' responses to these questions will be factual, and disclosure of them will not reveal aspects of the deliberative process. Answers to questions 3 and 6 will clearly be of this nature. Expressions of personal views or recommendations of a Senator, on the other hand, are clearly exempt from disclosure. Other segments of responses may or may not be subject to disclosure, depending on circumstances to be evaluated on remand. Any biographical information of a routine, nonprivate nature, such as would commonly appear in Who's Who or similar reference works, is not inextricably intertwined with the protected deliberative process of making recommendations, and is thus subject to disclosure. Other more probing analysis of a candidate's background, on the other hand, might constitute a specific recommendation of the candidate on grounds of his qualifications and experience, and thus be exempt.