Opinion ID: 779527
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Predecisional

Text: 17 A document may be considered predecisional if it was `prepared in order to assist an agency decisionmaker in arriving at his decision.' Id. at 921 (quoting Renegotiation Bd. v. Grumman Aircraft Eng'g Corp., 421 U.S. 168, 184, 95 S.Ct. 1491, 44 L.Ed.2d 57 (1975)). Material which predates a decision chronologically, but did not contribute to that decision, is not predecisional in any meaningful sense. Assembly, 968 F.2d at 921. In Assembly, as here, the adjusted data were prepared solely for the purpose of post-decision dissemination. Id. Giving deference to the district court's factual findings, we held in Assembly that the adjusted data generated as part of Census 1990 were not predecisional because those data, rather than the Bureau's evaluation of the processes used, did not contribute to the choice of which data to release. Id. 18 DOC argues that, as opposed to the adjusted data at issue in Assembly, the figures adjusted using the ACE in 2000 did in fact contribute to the decisions regarding which data to release for intra-state redistricting and allocation of federal funds. DOC maintains that the primary reason for ESCAP's recommendation to release unadjusted data for intra-state redistricting was the unexplained difference between estimates produced by the ACE and DA. This discrepancy purportedly proves that both estimates themselves contributed to the decision to use unadjusted data for redistricting. In contrast, DOC asserts that [t]he 1991 decision rested primarily on methodological concerns about the underlying statistical model and on policy concerns about disrupting ongoing redistricting and creating perverse incentives with respect to conducting the headcount. The 2001 decision, DOC argues, is therefore substantially different from that in 1991. 19 This argument is unpersuasive. First, just as in 1991, the Secretary's decision in 2001 not to release the adjusted data was due to questions regarding the reliability of the data as determined by an evaluation of the methods used to adjust the original count. The Principal Associate Director for Programs at the Bureau stated in his declaration that [t]he inconsistency between DA and the ACE raised the substantial possibility of an as yet undiscovered problem in the ACE methodology, and that [o]ther, more technical concerns are discussed in the ESCAP Report, including the possibility that balancing error or synthetic error had adversely affected the ACE data. Further, the 1991 decision was also based, at least in part, on discrepancies between the adjusted data and DA. 5 20 DOC also argues that the extent of agency deliberations was markedly different in 1991 and 2001. Assembly rejected the argument that the adjusted data generated during Census 1990 were predecisional based on the possibility that they might be considered for purposes other than the redistricting decision at some undisclosed time in the future. Id. Here, DOC asserts that the 2000 adjusted data were the subject of actual deliberations after the initial decision with respect to intra-state redistricting, and did in fact contribute to the October 2001 funding decision. Again, this purported difference is irrelevant. The same reasons supporting the district court's finding that the adjusted figures did not contribute to the Secretary's decision regarding intra-state redistricting also support its finding that they did not contribute to his decision as to funding. And Assembly forecloses DOC's argument on this point to the extent it asserts that the adjusted figures are predecisional because they are under consideration for other possible future uses. See id. (Characterizing these documents as predecisional simply because they play into an ongoing audit process would be a serious warping of the meaning of the word.) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).