But when, as in this case, the government states a budget estimate with numerical specificity, the public is entitled to presume that a particular set of calculations and assumptions underlie the estimate. The risk that exposing this analytic backup would misrepresent the reasoning actually motivating the government decision-maker is minimal.
Having examined in camera the documents submitted by the IRS numbered 7, 8, 9, and 12, it is clear to this Court that they were the documents relied upon by the government in making its $ 666 million estimate. This Court further finds that, by including this estimate in the Treasury Department's published explanation of the President's Budget, the government expressly adopted the computations used to produce the $ 666 million figure. Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to documents 7, 8, 9, and 12 is accordingly denied. Further, this Court notes that no material issue of fact remains to be decided with respect to ASPA's claim for production of these documents. It is therefore appropriate for this Court to enter summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff with respect to documents 7, 8, 9, and 12, plaintiff's failure to move for summary judgment notwithstanding. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 ("district courts are widely acknowledged to possess the power to enter summary judgments sua sponte, so long as the losing party was on notice that she had to come forward with all of her evidence"); C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2720 (1983) ("the weight of authority is that summary judgment may be rendered in favor of the opposing party even though he or she has made no formal cross-motion under rule 56"). With respect to all other documents at issue, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.
An order follows.
ORDER - September 12, 1990, Filed
Upon consideration of defendant's motion for summary
judgment, plaintiff's opposition thereto, oral argument, an in camera inspection by this Court of disputed documents, and the entire record in this case, it is this 11 day of September, 1990, hereby
ORDERED that defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part; and it is further
ORDERED that judgment shall be entered for defendant with respect to all documents at issue in this case except for the documents numbered 7, 8, 9, and 12, submitted by defendant for in camera inspection by this Court; and it is further
ORDERED that judgment shall be entered for the plaintiff
with respect to the documents numbered 7, 8, 9, and 12, submitted by defendant for in camera inspection by this Court; and it is
ORDERED that defendant shall deliver to plaintiff the aforementioned documents numbered 7, 8 and 12.
United States District Court
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.