Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


February 8, 1985


The opinion of the court was delivered by: GREENE

 HAROLD H. GREENE, District Judge.

 Consultants who complete a Form 474 are given a limited pledge of confidentiality as follows:

Information to Appointee : Completion of this form is required for all experts and consultants and for other persons who work 130 days or less a year identified by the head of the principal operating component. The information to be furnished on this form is required by Executive Order 11222 and the regulations issued thereunder. The information you disclose will be used to determine whether a conflict exists between your employment and financial interests and the performance of your services for the Government. The information will be held in confidence and will not be disclosed except as the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission or the head of the principal operating component or designee may determine for good cause . . . Unless you provide the information requested on this form, the organization will not be able to utilize your services.

 After this FOIA action was filed, the government agreed to release to the Washington Post the names of NCI consultants, their other federal employment, the results of HHS's review of the Forms (i.e., whether HHS found a conflict of interest in an individual case), and the name of the reviewing official. HHS refused, however, to disclose the consultants' non-federal employment and the lists of their financial interests relating to their consulting duties. On December 4, 1980, this Court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, holding that the disclosure of the remaining information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and was therefore protected from disclosure under Exemption 6, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). *fn2" In reaching that decision, the Court relied on Association for Women in Science v. Califano, 185 U.S. App. D.C. 19, 566 F.2d 339 (D.C.Cir.1977), in which the Court of Appeals held the same Forms 474 to be privileged from discovery under Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

 The Washington Post appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed, stating that discovery of information under the Federal Rules and disclosure under Exemption 6 of the FOIA involve different issues, and that, although the conflict of interest information was not discoverable under the Federal Rules, it was not exempt from disclosure under Exemption 6. Washington Post Co. v. United States Department of Health & Human Services, 223 U.S. App. D.C. 139, 690 F.2d 252, 255 (D.C.Cir.1982). The court went on to hold, however, that the list of consultants' financial interests is "financial" information within the meaning of Exemption 4, and on that basis it remanded the case to this Court for a determination whether disclosure of this information was likely to impair the government's ability to obtain similar information in the future. *fn3"

 After the instant case was remanded, the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Weber Aircraft Corp., 465 U.S. 792, 104 S. Ct. 1488, 79 L. Ed. 2d 814 (1984). In that case, the Supreme Court decided that confidential witness statements made to air crash safety investigators -- which the Court of Appeals for this Circuit had previously held were privileged with respect to pretrial discovery in Machin v. Zuckert, 114 U.S. App. D.C. 335, 316 F.2d 336 (D.C.Cir.1963) -- are also protected from disclosure under Exemption 5 of the FOIA. *fn4" The Court reasoned that if litigants could obtain through the FOIA material that is normally privileged, it would produce the anomalous result that the FOIA could be used to supplement civil discovery -- a construction of the FOIA which, it stated, it had previously rejected. 104 S. Ct. at 1494. *fn5"

 The government now argues on the basis of Weber, that the confidential report privilege which protects Forms 474 from discovery also protects them from disclosure under the FOIA. *fn6" This Court agrees.

 Exemption 4 of the FOIA protects from disclosure financial information which is "privileged or confidential." The Court of Appeals indicated in this case that, in light of the legislative history's explicit reference to particular privileges, *fn7" the two words should not be treated as synonymous. Washington Post Co., supra, 690 F.2d at 267 n. 50. Thus, information which is not confidential under the test in National Parks & Conservation Association v. Morton, 162 U.S. App. D.C. 223, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C.Cir.1974), may nevertheless be privileged and exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. *fn8" However, the Court of Appeals went on to warn that not every privilege recognized in civil discovery is necessarily to be applied as an absolute under FOIA, *fn9" but the discovery rules should be applied only "by way of rough analogies." EPA v. Mink 410 U.S. 73, 86, 93 S. Ct. 827, 835, 35 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1976). *fn10" That reasoning seems to have been rejected in Weber, and this Court, of course, is obliged to follow the later Weber decision.

 In Association for Women in Science v. Califano, supra, the court held that the "confidential report privilege" protects from discovery the same information that the Washington Post seeks in this FOIA action -- information concerning potential conflicts of interests provided by government consultants on Forms 474. The confidential report privilege, which has also been referred to as the required reports privilege and the official information privilege, *fn11" may be claimed only by the government and is based on the governmental interest in protecting the flow of information concerning the subject of the report in question. 566 F.2d at 343. This executive privilege, like the one at issue in Weber, is not novel nor has it ever been seriously challenged.

 This conclusion is bolstered by the Ethics in Government Act, 5 U.S.C.App. §§ 201 et seq., which specifically exempts from its financial disclosure requirements, any part-time "special" government employee who is "not reasonably expected to perform the duties of his office or position for more than sixty days in a calendar year." 5 U.S.C.App. I § 201(h). *fn13" The House Judiciary Committee explained the reason for this exclusion as follows:

The committee has been advised that this amendment has direct relevance to the operations of the Government. Several candidates for nomination to important Governmental advisory boards, who serve purely in a part-time capacity, requested that their nominations be withdrawn because of the public disclosure provisions. It was intended that no public disclosure be required in the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.