Legal Document

465 U.S. 792 104 S.Ct. 1488 79 L.Ed.2d 814 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.WEBER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION et al. No. 82-1616. Argued Jan. 11, 1984. Decided March 20, Syllabus When the engine of an Air Force aircraft failed in flight, pilot was severely injured when he ejected from plane. After collateral and safety investigations incident had been completed, filed a damages action against respondents as entities responsible for design manufacture plane's ejection equipment. Respondents sought pretrial discovery documents containing confidential unsworn statements made during investigation by airman who rigged maintained pilot's parachute But such prevented Machin v. Zukert, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 335, 316 F.2d 336, cert. denied, 375 896, 84 172, 11 124, which held that to air crash investigators are privileged with respect discovery. then requests under Freedom Information Act (FOIA) and, refused production, commenced Federal District Court, were protected disclosure Exemption 5 FOIA, exempts "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums letters would not be available law party other than agency litigation agency." The Court Appeals reversed, holding although requested "intra-agency memorandums" within meaning civil privilege, statutory phrase "would law" did encompass every privilege but rather reached only those privileges explicitly recognized FOIA's legislative history, court read extending privilege. Held: question 5. Exemption's plain language, construed this Court's prior decisions, is sufficient resolve presented. unquestionably letters" Exemption, since normally protects them discovery, they [the Force] Force]." 5's scope limited identified Congress history. To hold material can obtained through FOIA create anomaly could used supplement And history does contain kind compelling evidence congressional intent necessitate looking beyond indicates intended incorporate governmental analogous Pp. 798-804. 688 638 (9th Cir.1982), reversed. Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Newark, N.J., petitioner. Jacques E. Soiret, Los Angeles, Cal., respondents. Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court. 1 (FOIA), U.S.C. § 552 (1982 ed.), requires federal agencies disclose records1 do fall into one nine exempt categories.2 presented whether 5, 2 * On October 9, 1973, F-106B flight. Captain Richard Hoover, pilot, Under regulations, significant required two separate investigations: "collateral investigation" "safety investigation." 3 conducted "to preserve use claims, litigation, disciplinary actions, administrative proceedings, all purposes."3 Witnesses testify oath generally procedural safeguards applicable formal hearings. record public. 4 quite different. It specially appointed tribunal prepares report "the sole purpose taking corrective interest accident prevention."4 encourage witnesses speak fully frankly, sworn receive assurance their will any prevention.5 regulations general prohibition release reports attachments,6 subject exception allows Judge Advocate General specified categories "factual information" "nonpersonal evidence."7 Hoover various his equipment.8 During parties (respondents Weber9 Mills10) investigative pertaining accident. released entire investigation, well certain factual portions it investigation. 6 Confidential over 20 years ago. 336 (D.C.Cir.), 124 (1963). That effectively obtaining sought—specifically given therefore action. 7 In Government affidavit executed investigations, explaining withheld contained "conclusions, speculations, findings recommendations Aircraft Mishap Investigators" "testimony pledge confidentiality." App. 38. explained why believed national security adversely affected material.11 at issue agency, hence need disclosed virtue 5.12 633. agreed held, however, FOIA. accepting executive pre-decisional advice, opinions government agents, official information. accordingly remanded case directions witnesses' statements. II 8 language statute itself, our letters"13 Force]."14 9 Last Term, FTC Grolier, Inc., 462 ----, 103 2209, 76 387 (1983), we simply incorporates privileges: "The test 'routinely' 'normally' upon showing relevance." Id., S.Ct., 2214.15 Thus, precluding routine statements, covered 10 Grolier consistent cases. For example, itself relied on Renegotiation Board Grumman Engineering Corp., 421 168, 95 1491, 44 57 (1975), quoted 5: "Exemption enjoys relevant context." U.S., 2218 (emphasis original) (quoting 184, 1500). Similarly, NLRB Sears, Roebuck & Co., 132, 1504, 29 wrote: withholds member public private discover 148, 1515.16 FOMC Merrill, 443 340, 99 2800, 61 587 (1979), House Report [on FOIA] states allow withhold memoranda 'routinely process agency. . .' " 353, 2808 H.R.Rep. 1497, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., (1966)) U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News, pp. 2418, 2428. EPA Mink, 410 73, 93 827, 35 119 (1973), observed: "This clearly contemplates entitled 86, 835.17 Merrill limiting confronted claimed exemption We Open Market Committee's Domestic Policy Directives entirely clear fell because supported inference recognize See 357-360, 2810-12. mentioned incorporated exemption—not excluded. Moreover, dictum rely merely "that known discovery." 354, 2809. thing say recognition novel has found less universal acceptance, might if discussed its another well-settled some decades, viewed same degree skepticism.18 event, concludes "a claim attorney must caution." 355, sustained denominated F.2d, 338.19 Hence little aid 12 respondents' contention obtain have consistently rejected construction Baldridge Shapiro, 455 345, 360, n. 14, 102 1103, 1112, 71 199 (1982); 143, 10, 1513, (1975); Bannercraft 415 1, 24, 94 1028, 1040, 39 123 (1973). think weighty policies underlying so easily circumvented.20 13 Finally, necessary persuade us look language. Because difficulty inherent compiling exhaustive list evidentiary privileges,21 impractical treat comprehensive adopt. Rather, understood means "rough analogies." 835, recognizes claims confidentiality ensure frank open discussion efficient operations. ---, 2212; 359, 2811; 186, 189-190, 1501, 1502-03, 150-152, 1516-17, 86-89, 835-36; (1966); S.Rep. 813, 1st (1965).22 precisely reason.23 sufficiently related concerns expressed history24 cannot demonstrates should mean what says privilege.25 14 interpret says. judgment 15 Reversed. "On complaint, district United States complainant resides, principal place business, records situated, Columbia, jurisdiction enjoin withholding order production improperly complainant. shall determine matter de novo, may examine contents camera part thereof exemptions set forth subsection (b) section, burden sustain action." 552(a)(4)(B) ed.). section apply matters are— "(1) (A) specifically authorized criteria established Executive kept secret defense foreign policy (B) fact properly classified pursuant order; "(2) solely internal personnel rules practices agency; "(3) exempted (other 552b title), provided manner leave no discretion issue, establishes particular refers types withheld; "(4) trade secrets commercial financial information person confidential; "(5) inter-agency "(6) medical files similar constitute unwarranted invasion privacy; "(7) investigatory complied enforcement purposes, extent interfere deprive right fair trial impartial adjudication, (C) personal privacy, (D) identity source compiled criminal authority course conducting lawful intelligence furnished source, (E) techniques procedures, (F) endanger life physical personnel; "(8) examination, operating, condition prepared by, behalf of, regulation supervision institutions; "(9) geological geophysical data, including maps, concerning wells." 552(b) A.F.Reg. 110-14, ¶ 1(a) (July 18, 1977). 127-4, 19(a)(1) (Jan. 1973). 3-8(d) 1980). 127-4 19(a)(3) 1973); &Par; 2-4, 2-5 19(a)(4) 1973) states: "Notwithstanding restrictions these attachments prohibitions release, included accident/incident reports, covering examination wreckage, photographs, plotting charts, wreckage diagrams, transcripts traffic communications, weather maintenance records, crew qualifications, like nonpersonal specific authorization after consultation Inspector General. Also, accused court-martial will, proper order, form agent, employee, investigating officer, board witness testifies accused." Weber CV 74-1064-WPG (CD Cal.). Corporation. Mills Manufacturing "[T]he Investigation purposes harmful security. strength Force, greatly dependent, seriously number major accidents occur. successful flight program contributed continuously decreasing rate accidents. effectiveness depends large ability full candid cause each Much received persons giving testimony mishap conjecture, speculation opinion. Such encouraged imperative program. promised outside Force. Lacking subpoena witnesses, assurances circumstances surrounding express criticisms "If unable give assurances, felt promises hollow, input manufacturers many instances determination exact factors jeopardized. This hinder accomplishment prompt designed preclude occurrence accorded described Investigation, reflecting deliberations Investigating Board, very foundation program." 38-39. also both inappropriate view maintaining outweighed interests material. holdings, seek review either. contends include civilians personnel. Whatever merits assertion, irrelevant here includes promise confidentiality. However, otherwise, finding uncontroverted submitted see 38, there basis setting aside. respects, concede file cross-petition certiorari challenging Appeals' conclusion privileged. assume without deciding privileged, consider arguments amici here. Parcel Service, Inc. Mitchell, 451 56, 60, 2, 101 1559, 1562, 67 732 (1981); Bell Wolfish, 441 520, 531-532, 13, 1861, 1869-70, 60 447 (1979); Knetsch States, 364 361, 370, 81 137, 128 (1960). id., 2215 (BRENNAN, J., concurring judgment). 16 149, 1515 (footnote omitted) ("[I]t reasonable construe documents, context."). 17 contend Mink stands proposition purely never qualify protection portion otherwise nonprivileged appears document material, adopt cited approval law. 87-91 836-38 14. reading confirmed 1974 Amendment provides: "Any reasonably segregable requesting deletion subsection." amendment constituted Congress' codification aspect Mink. 854, 93d 32 (1974); 120 Cong.Rec. 17021 (1974) (remarks Sen. Hruska). 18 added: "We hesitate substantially duplicate exemption." explain how incorporation exemption. relevance further reduced reserved falls 355-356, 17, 2809-10, 17. Thus hardly control face today. 19 governing describes argue great unfair expect defend brought access it. answered argument noting party's particularized occasion justify avoid unfairness routinely discoverable 2212. make 21 illustrated controversy proposed provisions Rules Evidence privileges, Congress. J. Weinstein M. Berger, 501[01] (1982). 22 Senate stated drafted response comments committee hearings, 4, 9. indicating Administrative Procedure Act: Hearings Before Subcomm. Practice Comm. Judiciary, 196, 206, 366-367, 418 (1965). 23 agree hamper operation important perhaps even, Secretary impair weakening branch military, considered privileged." 339. follows inconsistent fundamental goals necessarily reduce amount able much find way realm even first place. 24 Cf. 2810-12 (privilege Reserve's directives contracts merit 5). 25 recent several times act legislation codified represent rejection contrary, enacted Fed.Rule Evid. 501, power courts fashion common Congressional refusal codify limits Rule 501. Indeed, 501 adopted wished questions attempt them. 650, (1973); 1277, p. 7051; 1494 21, supra. failure inquiry. statutes. obviously sheds light

Classification Label: 4