Document: 345 U.S. 1 73 S.Ct. 528 97 L.Ed. 727 UNITED STATESv.REYNOLDS et al. No. 21. Argued Oct. 21, 1952. Decided March 9, 1953. Mr. Samuel D. Slade, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Charles J. Biddle, Philadelphia, Pa., respondents. Chief Justice VINSON delivered the opinion of Court. These suits under Tort Claims Act1 arise from death three civilians in crash a B—29 aircraft at Waycross, Georgia, on October 6, 1948. Because an important question Government's privilege to resist discovery2 is involved, we granted certiorari. 343 918, 72 678, 96 1332. 2 The had taken flight purpose testing secret electronic equipment, with four civilian observers aboard. While aloft, fire broke out one bomber's engines. Six nine crew members, and observes were killed crash. 3 widows deceased brought consolidated against United States. In pretrial stages plaintiffs moved, Rule 34 Federal Rules Civil Procedure,3 production Air Force's official accident investigation report statements surviving connection investigation. Government moved quash motion, claiming that these matters privileged disclosure pursuant Force regulations promulgated R.S. § 161.4 District Judge sustained plaintiffs' holding good cause been shown.5 claim 161 was rejected premise Act, making liable 'in same manner' as private individual6 waived any based upon executive control over governmental documents. 4 Shortly after this decision, Court received letter Secretary Force, stating 'it has determined it would not be public interest furnish report. * *' court allowed rehearing its earlier order, filed formal 'Claim Privilege.' This document repeated prior generally 161, then stated further objected documents 'for reason question, together personnel board, engaged highly mission Force.' An affidavit Advocate General, States also court, which asserted demanded material could furnished 'without seriously hampering national security, flying safety development technical military equipment.' offered produce without cost, examination by plaintiffs. witnesses refresh their memories statement made them authorized testify all except those 'classified nature.' 5 ordered order might determine whether they contained matter. declined, so entered 37(b)(2)(i),7 facts issue negligence established favor. After hearing damages, final judgment Appeals affirmed,8 both showing documents, ultimate disposition case consequence refusal 6 We have broad propositions pressed us decision. On behalf urged department heads power withhold custody judicial view if deem interest.9 Respondents executive's Act. Both positions constitutional overtones find unnecessary pass upon, there being narrower ground Touhy v. Ragen, 1951, 340 462, 71 416, 95 417; Rescue Army Municipal Los Angeles, 1947, 331 549, 574—585, 67 1409, 1422—1427, 91 1666. 7 Act expressly makes Procedure applicable States.10 imposed liability operation 37, 34. Since compels only 'not privileged,' essential valid Rule. hold was, that, therefore, below subjected terms Congress did consent 8 think should clear term privileged' used 34, refers 'privileges' understood law evidence. When lodged his Privilege,' he attempted therein invoke revealing secrets, well evidence.11 existence conceded below,12 and, indeed, most outspoken critics claims privilege.13 9 Judicial experience protects state secrets limited country.14 English more extensive, but still relatively slight compared other evidentiary privileges.15 Nevertheless, principles application emerge quite clearly available precedents. belongs must it; can neither claimed16 nor waived17 party. It lightly invoked.18 There privilege, head matter,19 actual personal consideration officer.20 itself circumstances are appropriate privilege,21 yet do forcing very thing designed protect.22 latter requirement presents real difficulty. As it, helpful draw dealing analogous self-incrimination. 10 self-incrimination presented courts similar sort problem. Too much inquiry into force meant protect, while complete abandonment lead intolerable abuses. Indeed, problem, extremes advocated, some saying bare assertion witness conclusive, others required reveal matter behind judge verification.23 Neither extreme prevailed, sound formula compromise developed. authoritative expression country early Burr trial.24 differences phraseology, substance agreed satisfied evidence circumstances, 'from implications setting asked, responsive answer or explanation why cannot answered dangerous because injurious result.' Hoffman States, 341 479, 486—487, 814, 818, 1118.25 If satisfied, will accepted requiring disclosure. 11 Regardless how articulated, like applied here. abdicated caprice officers. Yet go far say may automatically require before case. possible satisfy case, reasonable danger compulsion expose which, divulged. occasion appropriate, jeopardize security protect insisting evidence, even alone, chambers. 12 instant escape notice time vigorous preparation defense. Experience past common knowledge air potent weapons our scheme defense, newly developing devices greatly enhanced effective use power. equally apparent kept full advantage exploited interests. record trial appeared occurred plane gone aloft test equipment. Certainly contain references equipment primary concern mission. 13 Of course, information him, no position decide until privilege. Thus entirely proper rule initially petitioner shown probable discovery Thereafter, when indicating possibility certainly sufficient cut off demand necessity made. 14 each probe satisfying invoking appropriate. Where strong necessity, accepted, compelling overcome ultimately stake.26 A fortiori, where dubious, prevail. Here, minimized alternative, given respondents make showdown By failure pursue posed decision set dubious necessity. 15 nothing suggest causal accident. Therefore, adduce causation resort touching secrets. opportunity just formally members examination. offer accepted. 16 cited cases criminal field, held privileges price letting defendant free.27 rationale since prosecutes accused duty see justice done, unconscionable allow undertake prosecution deprive anything Such civil forum moving party, consented. 17 reversed remanded proceedings consistent views expressed opinion. 18 Reversed remanded. 19 BLACK, FRANKFURTER, JACKSON dissent substantially reasons forth Maris below. 192 F.2d 987. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2674, U.S.C.A. 2674. Procedure, 'Rule Discovery Production Documents Things Inspection, Copying, Photographing. Upon motion party therefor parties, subject provisions 30(b), action pending (1) permit inspection copying photographing, designated papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects, tangible things, privileged, constitute relating within scope permitted 26(b) possession, custody, control; (2) entry land property possession inspecting, measuring, surveying, photographing object thereon 26(b). shall specify time, place, manner taking copies photographs prescribe such conditions just.' 22, 22: 'The regulations, inconsistent law, government department, conduct officers clerks, distribution performance business, use, preservation records, appertaining it.' Regulation 62—7(5)(b) provides: 'Reports boards officers, special reports, extracts therefrom persons outside chain command specific approval F.R.D. 468. 2674: liable, respecting title tort claims, extent individual punitive damages.' 37. Refusal Make Discovery: Consequences '(b) Failure Comply With Order. Other Consequences. officer managing agent refuses obey *, orders regard just, among following: '(i) regarding questions character description land, contents paper, physical mental condition purposes accordance obtaining order; *.' suppress immediately (see supra, note 4), roots deeper. said legislative recognition inherent protected system separation (1946 ed.) 932; Yellow Cab Co., 543, 553, 399, 406, 523. Totten 1875, 92 105, 107, 23 605; Firth Sterling Steel Co. Bethlehem D.C.E.D.Pa.1912, 199 F. 353; Pollen Ford Instrument D.C.E.D.N.Y.1939, 26 F.Supp. 583; Cresmer D.C.E.D.N.Y.1949, 203; Bank Line D.C.S.D.N.Y.1946, 68 587, Id., Cir., 163 133. Wigmore Evidence (3d 2212(a), p. 2378(g)(5), pp. 785 seq.; Greenleaf (16th 250—251; Sanford, Evidentiary Privileges Against Data Within Control Executive Departments, Vanderbilt L.Rev. 73, 74—75 (1950). 987, 996. See Wigmore, op. cit. 11. Most precedents reviewed recent Duncan Cammell, Laird & (1942) A.C. 624. First 353. re Grove, 1910, 180 62. Marshall, C.J., Aaron trial, I Robertson's Reports 186: 'That matter, require, certain. What ought delicate discussion hoped, never rendered necessary country.' 16. 20 minister who political seen considered himself formed grounds produced. 624, 638. 21 page 642: 'Although objection validly production, interest, remember ruling judge. executive. (Emphasis supplied.) 22 pages 638—642; cf. language 486, 1118, speaking hazard probing too derogation self-incrimination: 'However, witness, interposing claim, prove sense usually compelled surrender protection guarantee.' Compare expressions Rolfe, B. Willes, Regina v.Garbett, C. K. 474, 492 (1847); 2271. 24 244: 'When propounded, consider direct implicate witness; decided negative, violating secured him law. criminate himself, sole what be. participate judgment, effect knowing be, fact judges strip allows claims.' 25 Brown 1928, 276 134, 48 288, 500; Mason 1917, 244 362, 37 621, 61 1198. L.Ed 605, action, contract perform espionage, secret. dismissed pleadings ever reaching obvious prevail 27 Andolschek, 1944, 142 503; Beekman, 1946, 155 580.

Category: 4