Legal Document

426 U.S. 394 96 Supreme Court Reporter 2119 48 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 725 Henry W. KERR et al., Petitioners,v.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the NORTHERN OF CALIFORNIA al. Number 74-1023. Argued Nov. 11, 1975. Decided June 14, 1976. Syllabus CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT In a class action by California state prisoners on behalf of themselves and all present or future adult male felons in prisons parole, plaintiffs alleged constitutional violations manner which members Adult Authority other petitioners determine length detention conditions punishment for convicted offenders, sought declaratory injunctive relief. course discovery pursuant to Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 34 (1) files consisting, Inter alia, personnel employees Authority; (2) prisoners' files, consisting every twentieth inmate each correctional institution. Petitioners, claiming that were irrelevant, confidential, privileged, suggested they should not be compelled turn over without prior District camera inspection. That court ordered production documents such review but limited number people associated with who might examine documents. Petitioners then filed petition mandamus vacate order, Appeals denied. Though recognizing qualified governmental "official secrecy privilege," indicated that, contrary situation here, assertion privilege had made specificity high-level officials. A somewhat similar ensued regard ending Appeals' denial opinion. Held: circumstances this case particularly since less extreme alternatives modification challenged orders available issuance writ is inappropriate. Pp. 402-406. (a) As means implementing rule will issue only extraordinary circumstances, party seeking largely discretionary must show there are no adequate secure desired 402-403. (b) He existed. The opinion did foreclose review, apparently left open opportunity through responsible officials assert more specifically have their request reconsidered. They thus an avenue far short achieve relief seek, approach affords appropriate useful method achieving balance between petitioners' claims irrelevance plaintiffs' asserted need 404-406. (c) There reason believe its order relating meant from availing same securing as files. Pacific KF135 P2 406. 511 Federal Reporter, 2nd 192, Dec. 18, 1974 (unreported), affirmed. Karl S. Mayer, San Francisco, Cal., petitioners. baron E. Bergesen, III, respondents. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered Court. 1 defendants action, writs Ninth Circuit compel two orders. refused writs. We hold light availability alternative, extreme, path therefore affirm. 2 * Seven custody Department Corrections State Northern "on now are, well be, Corrections, whether confined institution operated parole." App. 370.1 Among case: individual Authority, Administrative Officer Director California. Plaintiffs' complaint alleges substantial carries out function determining criminal offenders. 3 discovery, submitted requests 34. Petitioners' subsequent petitions concerned classes part these requests. first class, series 1973, referred here "Adult files," generally composed past, present, operation, memoranda written Chairman within preceding five years.2 second we was requested November "prisoners' files." Plaintiffs at institution, 234; documents, therefore, comsed sample Corrections. 4 When presented objected, suggesting required evaluate privilege. moved, 37, compelling discovery. 76. matter Magistrate findings recommendations, recommended undertaking inspection accepted Magistrate's recommendations Seeking limit distribution employees, however, issued protective limiting could those documents: 5 "(N)o file any member hearing representative executive officer, nor copy contents, shall shown person except counsel record than total investigators designated counsel, extent necessary conduct action." Pet. Certiorari xvi. 6 Dissatisfied Court's ruling, under 28 Code KF62 § 1651(a),3 requesting granting motion denied January 17, 192. It concluded "the question relevancy 'is loosely construed stage trial.' 8 Wright & Miller, Practice Procedure, 2008 41 (1970)," grounds Id., 196. According Appeals, "a proper line attack" underlying lawsuit. Ibid. went observe absolute would allow them avoid issue. recognize, existence common-law "encompassing sometimes official secret 198, conceivably cover But relying decision versus Reynolds, 345 1, 73 528, 97 L.Ed. 727 (1953), because assertions personally lacking what it saw requisite specificity, inappropriate: 7 "Neither (Adult) officialf agencies asserted, writing, district court. "The ' "have seen considered contents himself formed view public interest ought produced" (United U.S., n. 20, S.Ct., 532, quoting Duncan Cammell, Laird Co., (1942) A.C. 624, 638) rationale claimed . 9 "In (this) suit, merely raised blanket objection covering numbers 7, 15, 21 22. Formally involve specifying privileged reasons, especially where nature does reveal obviously matter. 10 sum, fails (Sic ) usurpation warrants remedy mandamus." F.2d, 198-199. 11 followed petitioners, asserting privilege, objected requests, Magistrate. magistrate produce up 200 prisoner subject "that restrict examination attorneys use connection lawsuit." xl. recommendation, added requirement prisoner's turned inmate's consent. xxxi, xxxiii. December 1974. xxiii. 12 both petitions.4 granted certiorari.5 421 987, 95 1988, 44 476 (1975). II 13 drastic one, invoked situations. Will States, 389 90, 95, 88 269, 273, 19 305 (1967); Bankers Life Cas. company Holland, 346 379, 382-385, 74 145, 147-149, 98 106 (1953); Ex parte Fahey, 332 258, 259, 67 1558, 1559, 91 2041 (1947). observed, "has traditionally been used federal courts 'to confine inferior lawful exercise prescribed jurisdiction authority when duty do so.' " Supra, Roche Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 21, 26, 63 938, 941, 87 1185 (1943). And, while unduly narrow technical understanding constitutes "jurisdiction," supra, fact still remains "only exceptional amounting judicial 'usurpation power' justify invocation remedy." 14 Our treatment system good reason. recognized before, actions one involved instant unfortunate consequence making (district court) judge litigant, obliged obtain personal leave his defense litigants (appearing) before him" case. 384-385, 149, U., 260, 1559. More importantly, era excessively crowded lower dockets, fair prompt administration justice discourage piecemeal litigation. has Congress' determination Judiciary Act 1789 general "appellate postponed until after final judgment rendered trial court." 96, 274; Parr 351 513, 520-521, 76 912, 917-918, 100 1377 (1956).6 readiness anything run real risk defeating very policies furthered Congress. 15 set forth various issuance. attain he desires, satisfy burden showing (his) right 'clear indisputable.' Banker's 384, 148, ex rel. Bernardin Duell, 172 576, 582, 286, 287, 43 559 (1899); 274. Moreover, important remember large discretion addressed. Schlagenhauf Holder, 379 104, 112 8, 85 234, 239, 152 (1964); 520, 917. See also Technitrol, Incorporated McManus, 405 84 (CA8 1968), cert. denied, 997, 89 1591, 22 775 (1969); Car Foundry Pence, 403 949 (CA9 1968). 16 looked framework factors, appear What declaration absolutely can never access them. On contrary, "production confidential informed below outweighs confidentiality." Brief 77-78. ask essence passing individually disclosed. dealing possible necessity review. Its based anyone eligible it, specificity. return Court, officials, materials reconsidered different light: 17 "Since may information protected, particular document perhaps seek inspection, time discovered 18 contend denying afforded all. To read abovequoted language providing precisely seek. regarded ambiguous, fortified our reading recognition serious consequences flow unwarranted failure grant reviewed being over. rest notion turning result injury State's prison-parole unnecessarily chilling free uninhibited exchange ideas staff system, causing disclosure consequent drying sources,7 unjustifiably compromising confidentiality system's records files.8 potential seriousness considerations weight accorded inevitably vary specific question, seem relatively costless eminently worthwhile insure correctly struck.9 Indeed, long held highly g., Nixon, 418 683, 706, 94 3090, 3106, 1039 (1974); (1953). 20 Insofar concerned, true statement reasons denial. However, think following gave follow confident intend afford apply and, upon application, receive Accordingly So ordered. 23 STEVENS took consideration seven represent "plaintiffs." described numbered 22: "7. All including maintained officer employee thereof respect member, representative, Executive Authority." "14. Each report Officer, ." "15. statements during past years favoring, opposing, way commenting bills legislation legislative proposal pending U. House Representatives, Senate Legislature." "18. proposals change whatsoever organization operation of, qualifications for, substantive criteria procedures employed "20. years, whom sent, limitation sent government organizations, members, representatives, "21. effect 1972 pertain Policy Statement Resolution executed date." "22. however formal informal, calendar year, concern Authority's adoption new policies, procedures, criteria, like, 52-56. Title 1651(a) provides: established Congress aid respective jurisdictions agreeable usages principles law." While yet come trial, additional developments pendency Since none relevant resolution us, simply summarize Subsequent filing certiorari case, amended allegations led appointment three-judge hear 2281. single certified Chief Judge appearing require convening appointed three October 28, 1975, several days oral argument soon thereafter once again. This amendment unnecessary dissolved itself, remanding entire originally assigned Thus, stands, heard single-judge argument, represented "no longer appeal, (the underlying) completed able decide (the) issues it." Memorandum Respondents Concerning Mootness Pending Matter 1-2. moot. advised want deferred suggestion mootness argument. stated date substantially delayed, changed minds indeed Tr. Oral Arg. 38, 40-41. papers formally withdrawing mootness, representations combined taken place, us indication aside, narrowly defined see 1292, appellate appeals extends interlocutory Metros Dist. Colo., 441 313 (CA10 1971). Board Parole Merhige, 487 25 (CA4 1973), 417 918, 2625, 224 (1974). assert, citing Ford Motor Treasury Indiana, 323 459, 65 347, (1945), Edelman Jordan, 415 651, 1347, 39 662 (1974), material actually property Eleventh Amendment. raise either proceedings reach

Classification Label: 0