Document: 462 U.S. 19 103 S.Ct. 2209 76 L.Ed.2d 387 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al., Petitionersv.GROLIER INCORPORATED. No. 82-372. Argued March 29, 1983. Decided June 6, Syllabus Exemption 5 of the Freedom Information Act (FOIA) exempts from disclosure under "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums letters which would not be available by law to a party . in litigation with agency." Petitioner Federal Trade Commission (FTC) conducted an investigation subsidiary respondent connection civil penalty action against District Court filed Department Justice. The was later dismissed prejudice when Government declined comply discovery order. Thereafter, request FTC for certain documents concerning subsidary, but denied on ground that were exempt 5. Respondent then brought suit compel release documents. held as, inter alia, attorney work-product. Appeals generated during could withheld basis work-product rule unless show "litigation related terminated exists potentially exists." court reasoned encompassed coextensive privilege Rules Civil Procedure, and requirement must disclosed absence existence potential best comported fact is qualified one. Held: Under 5, mandatory without regard status it prepared. By its own terms, requires reference whether normally required agency. literal reading Rule Procedure 26(b)(3), agency attorneys subject subsequent there showing need thus fall within scope But regardless how 26(b)(3) construed, erred construing protect material only if exists. test "routinely" "normally" upon relevance. Appeals' determination nature irrelevant FOIA context. Whether immunity absolute qualified, protected document cannot said "routine" disclosure. Work-product materials are immune one seeking can substantial litigation. Such parties hence This result, establishing discrete category information, implements FOIA's purpose provide "workable" rules. Pp. 23-28. 217 U.S.App.D.C. 47, 671 F.2d 553, reversed. Kenneth S. Geller, Washington, D.C., petitioners. Daniel Mason, San Francisco, Cal., respondent. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 (FOIA), U.S.C. § 552, mandates make records public. Section 552(b)(5) It well established this exemption intended encompass rule. question presented case extent, any, component applies requested has been terminated. 2 In 1972, undertook Americana Corporation, Grolier Incorporated. Justice.1 1976, 1978, Americana.2 initially entire stating did have any information responsive some items remaining portion specific enough permit locate searching millions contained investigatory files. refused few they FOIA.3 3 Pursuant Commission's Rules, appealed agency's General Counsel. Following review respondent's request, after considerable process give take, dispute finally centered seven documents.4 camera inspection, determined all 552(b)(5), either as work-product, confidential attorney-client communications, internal pre-decisional material. On appeal, four exists."5 556 (1982). 4 Procedure. A litigation, view, We granted petition certiorari, --- ----, 339, 74 381 Because we find construction reverse. Subsection (b) lists nine exemptions requirements "represent[ ] congressional types Executive Branch option keep confidential, so chooses." EPA v. Mink, 410 73, 80, 93 827, 832, 35 119 (1973). primary these, enable benefit "frank discussion legal policy matters." S.Rep. 813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1965). See H.R.Rep. 1497, 2d 10 (1966), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1966, p. 2418. keeping Act's "the fullest responsible disclosure," 3, Congress "as narrow[ [is] consistent efficient operations." Id., at 9. 10. 6 Both found issue properly classified "work product" materials, no serious argument about correctness classification.6 "It equally clear had attorney's specifically mind adopted 5," being enjoyed context NLRB Sears Roebuck Co., 421 132, 154, 154-155, 95 1504, 1518, 44 29 (1975); 10; 2. 7 Hickman Taylor, 329 495, 510, 67 385, 393, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947), recognized product lawyer;" such discovered "necessity justification." An necessary because, stated: 8 "Were open opposing counsel mere demand, much what now put down writing remain unwritten. thoughts, heretofore inviolate, his own. Inefficiency, unfairness sharp practices inevitably develop giving advice preparation cases trial. effect profession demoralizing. And interests clients cause justice poorly served." 511, S.Ct., 393. basic context, like many other rules, self-defining extensive Prior 1970, Courts addressed extended beyond Those courts considering reached varying results.7 appeals issue. Republic Gear Co. Borg-Warner, 551, 557 (CA2 1967), prepared appeal case. also noted further Thus, time enacted than general understanding need, consensus way developed respect temporal privilege. 11 amended clarify extent trial discoverable federal courts. provides, pertinent part: 12 "[A] may obtain tangible things anticipation another party's representative he unable undue hardship equivalent means. ordering made, shall mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, theories litigation." 13 does words address Advisory Committee's comments reveals express concern Notes Committee 1970 Amendments, 28 U.S.C.App. 441-442 (1976). language protects long J. Wright A. Miller, Practice 2024, 201 (1970) (hereinafter Miller). Whatever problems engender area, see id., 201-202, provides satisfactory resolution FOIA. 14 rely exclusively particular however, because independently Sears, Roebuck, U.S., 148-149, 1515. At came Appeals, decided retained their termination prepared, pending contemplated.8 addition, overwhelming majority district reporting decisions accord view.9 "Exemption incorporates privileges enjoys relevant statutory pretrial context." Renegotiation Board Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., 168, 184, 1491, 1500, 57 (1975) (emphasis added). state fairly 15 discovery—a proposition do necessarily agree—is makes little difference determining translates into 16 current relating privilege, intent 5; 17 urges meaning "plain" that, least case, same ordered previous follow, based routinely litigants. logical result position whenever anyone previously rejected line analysis. supra, construed "exempt those documents, privileged 149, (Emphasis added) difficult imagine otherwise sufficient override remove privileged. n. 16, 1516, 16. 18 Accordingly, hold Only categorical expediting means workable rules furthered. judgment ordered. 20 BRENNAN, whom BLACKMUN joins, concurring part judgment. 21 rests two alternative holdings: ante, 26; more limited holding 26. I latter unpersuasive accordingly rest former. 22 * agree wholeheartedly itself incorporate actual before protection doctrine applies. As notes, Ante, 25. contrary interpretation work harm policies designed serve protect. described reasons protecting (1947): 23 "In performing various duties, essential lawyer degree privacy, free unnecessary intrusion counsel. Proper client's demands assemble sift considers facts, prepare plan strategy needless interference. reflected, course, interviews, statements, memoranda, correspondence, briefs, personal beliefs, countless intangible ways—aptly roughly termed 'work lawyer.' Were 24 doubtless correct view greatest still progress; follow disappears once (and "related" litigation) over. invasion "[a]n inviolate," resulting demoralizing profession, great takes place rather sooner. More concretely, connected prior real client even controversy resolved. Many government agencies, example, deal hundreds thousands essentially similar decide conduct enforcement Few these will each sense involving private arising out set historical facts; yet large classes them present recurring, parallel factual settings identical considerations.1 corresponding detriment agency) earlier, persons. He get research reasoning, enabling him litigate "on wits borrowed adversary." 516, 396 (Jackson, J., concurring). Worse yet, gain insight strategic tactical approach deciding suits brought, conducted, terms settled. Nor problem agencies. Any litigants who face commonly recurring type liability insurers, manufacturers consumer products machinery, large-scale employers, securities brokers, regulated industries, rights liberties organizations, on—have acute interest manner settle disputes. Counsel naturally feel inhibition creating retaining written used "unrelated" opponent client. less litigious might cases; fear future instill undesirable caution, neither nor always entirely sure lie over horizon. precisely danger "[i]nefficiency, unfairness[,] practices" demoralization warned against.2 25 understand Court's point quite accurately characterizes first "particular 26(b)(3)." Indeed, hardly otherwise, since plain incorporates. exempt[s] 1515, (footnote omitted). 1518; Open Market Merrill, 443 340, 353, 99 2800, 2808, 61 587 (1979); 85-86, 91, 835, 837, (1973).3 nothing our authorizes us define coverage differently definition ordinary lawsuit. If Rule, memorandu[m] lette[r]" Exemption, absolutely exempt.4 II 26 Since rejects "related litigation" governs application go further. proceeds, forward second directly prior, unrelated " 'routinely' litigation," 27, decision test. 26-27. apparently preclude circuit where precedents test, "majority view" depend location library reads cases.5 grant uniformity good thing matter, taking far. 27 confess source draws reasoning mystery me. know discoverability (or anything else) is, is.6 Certainly statute contrary; directs "which "By law" presumably "by correctly hand," (whether incorrectly) courts." quick perusal reveals, saying apply absolutely, able overcome (an embraces, 28). Alternatively, cites statement Aircraft, 'Exemption context.' 26-27 Court). Again, quoted passage refers simply embodied interpreting erecting nonstatutory disputed point, laid binding precedent entertaining given suit, circuit, Absent controlling precedent, ordinarily look inform 26(b)(3). else am aware determine legally it—even reaches word "routinely," appears obliged adhere unmistakeable contrary. warrant astonishing principle. Hence, although join United States Civ. 388-72 (D NJ). charged violation 1948 cease-and-desist order making misrepresentations regarding encyclopedia advertisements door-to-door sales. letter Commission, following: "1) All refer relate covert Corporation and/or Incorporated, made April 1973, specialist named Wendell Reid; 2) investigation, employee following companies: [listing companies, including Corporation]. 3) person, company entity." App. 15-16. "Covert investigation" defined "any entity notified advance acts taken pursuant investigation." Id. abandoned requests request. "identifiable records" 552(a)(3), covered exemption. claims provides: "This section matters are— (5) inter-agency ." released number suit. claim others. withdrew affirmed communication, F.2d, 554 clearly 557. These rulings here. assertions ethical continuing investigations instituted containing evidence unethical conduct. raise decline it. Honeywell, Inc. Piper 50 F.R.D. 117 (MD Pa.1970); Bourget Employees Insurance 48 (Conn.1969); Stix Products Merchants Mfrs. Inc., 47 334 (SDNY 1969); LaRocca State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. 278 (WD Pa.1969); Kirkland Morton Salt 46 (ND Ga.1968); Chitty Automobile 36 37 (EDSC 1964); North America Union Carbide 520 (Colo.1964); Hanover Shoe, Shoe Mach. 207 F.Supp. 407 Pa.1962); Thompson Hoitsma, 112 (N.J.1956); Tobacco Allied Stocks, Transamerica 534 (Del.1954). Re Murphy, 560 326, (CA8 1977); Legget Platt, 542 655 (CA6 1976) cert. denied, 430 945, 97 1579, 51 792 (1977); Duplan Corp. Moulinage Retorderie de Chavanoz, 487 480, 483-484 (CA4 1973). Grand Jury, 604 798, 803 (CA3 1979) (work-product continues related). Cf. Kent NLRB, 530 612 (CA5 turn actually ensued), 429 920, 316, 287 re Copper Tennessee, B.R. 177 (Bkrtcy.Tenn.1982); International Systems Controls 552 (SD Tx.1981); Capitol Service, 89 578 (ED Wis.1981); LTV Securities Litigation, 595 TX 1981); First Wisconsin Mortgage Trust 86 160 Wis.1980); Panter Marshall Field 80 718 Ill.1978); OK Tire Rubber 71 465 (Idaho 1976); SCM Xerox 70 508 (Conn.1976) dism'd, 1031 Burlington Industries Exxon 65 (Md.1974). Hercules, 434 136 (Del.1977) (protected closely matter); Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Sealy, 90 45 Ill.1981) litigation). possible, suppose, considered very broad test; adopting occasion explore outer boundaries. possibility merely dilemma: read broadly classify factually "related," virtually limitation all, almost 26(b)(1) originated narrowly threatens discussed text. harmful toothless. generally, e.g., Pfizer 333-335 Leggett 655, 659-660 509 730 1974); 480 "[e]xtending comports absolute." my mistakes 180 degrees significance explained: unpenetrable discovery, willing produced 660. decrease end lower threshold overcoming barrier. "he means," What "undue" depends both discovery. C. 202 (1970). 354, 2809, (1979): "[I]t every known discovery." Of settled doctrine. (1975). "final opinions" explaining actions already made. 150-154, 1516-1518. gist incorporated specifically, Government's executive Ibid. true doctrine; final "prepared trial," questionable constitute letters," 552(b)(5). Presumably, principle reverse well. That (some sort investigative report, say) doctrine, disagreed, disclosure, though lawsuit district. One posit different incorporation law—one enacted. wisely declines adopt reading. There indicates "freeze" existed 1966; phrase "available certainly seems time. recognition changes law, adoption 1970.

Category: 4