GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Com'n
| Decision Date | 11 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1328,78-1328 |
| Citation | 598 F.2d 790 |
| Parties | 5 Media L. Rep. 1477 GTE SYLVANIA, INCORPORATED v. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, Richard O. Simpson, Barbara Franklin, Lawrence Kushner, Constance Newman, R. David Pittle, Sadye Dunn, Vince DeLuise. RCA CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, Richard O. Simpson, Barbara H. Franklin, Lawrence M. Kushner, Constance E. Newman, R. David Pittle, Sadye E. Dunn, and Vince DeLuise. The MAGNAVOX COMPANY v. Richard O. SIMPSON, Chairman, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Barbara Franklin, Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Lawrence Kushner, Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Constance Newman, Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission, R. David Pittle, Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Sadye Dunn, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and Vince DeLuise, Freedom Information Officer, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION v. Richard O. SIMPSON, Chairman, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Barbara Franklin, Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Lawrence Kushner, Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Constance Newman, Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission, R. David Pittle, Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Sadye Dunn, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and Vince DeLuise, Freedom Information Officer, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. MOTOROLA, INC. v. Richard O. SIMPSON, Barbara Franklin, Lawrence Kushner, Constance Newman, R. David Pittle, Sadye Dunn, Vince DeLuise and Consumer Product Safety Commission. WARWICK ELECTRONICS, INC. v. Richard O. SIMPSON, Barbara Franklin, Lawrence Kushner, Constance Newman, R. David Pittle, Sadye Dunn, Vince DeLuise, and Consumer Product Safety Commission. FORD AEROSPACE & COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION v. Richard O. SIMPSON, Barbara Franklin, Lawrence Kushner, Constance Newman, R. David |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Barbara Allen Babcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., James W. Garvin, Jr., U. S. Atty., Wilmington, Del., Leonard Schaitman, Mark N. Mutterperl (argued), Attys., Appellate Section, Civ. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Harry L. Shniderman, James M. McHaney, Jr., Covington & Burling, Washington, D. C., for appellees GTE Sylvania, Incorporated and Ford Aerospace & Communications Corp.
Bernard G. Segal, Charles C. Hileman, III (argued), Deena Jo Schneider, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee RCA Corp.
Robert W. Steele, Alan M. Grimaldi, Howrey & Simon, Washington, D. C., H. James Conaway, Jr., Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington, Del., for appellee General Electric Co. Richard J. Abrams, Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, Del., for appellee The Magnavox Co.
Januar D. Bove, Jr., Connolly, Bove & Lodge, Wilmington, Del., for appellee Zenith Radio Corp.
Stephen B. Clarkson, Sullivan, Beauregard, Clarkson, Moss, Brown & Johnson, Washington, D. C., for appellees The Magnavox Company and Zenith Radio Corp.
Walter T. Kuhlmey, Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, Ill., for appellee Motorola, Inc.
Nancy L. Buc, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, Washington, D. C., for appellee Matsushita Electric Corporation of America.
Peter Garland, J. Portis Hicks, Wender, Murase & White, New York City, for appellee Sharp Electronics Corp.
David Fleischer, Battle, Fowler, Jaffin, Pierce & Kheel, New York City, for appellee Toshiba America, Inc.
Charles S. Crompton, Jr., Potter, Anderson & Corroon, Wilmington, Del., for appellees Motorola, Inc., Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, Inc., Sharp Electronics Corp., and Toshiba America, Inc.
Burton Y. Weitzenfeld, Michael A. Stiegel, Arnstein, Gluck, Weitzenfeld & Minow, Chicago, Ill., Howard M. Berg, Berg, Aber, Heckler & Wyatt, Wilmington, Del., for appellee Warwick Electronics, Inc.
H. Woodruff Turner, Bruce Wiegand, Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Johnson & Hutchinson, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee Admiral Corp.
Alan B. Morrison (argued), Diane B. Cohn, Washington, D. C., for amici curiae Consumers Union of the United States, Inc. and Public Citizen's Health Research Group.
Charles E. Hill, Alan R. Schwartz, Washington, D. C., for amicus curiae Consumer Federation of America.
Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and GIBBONS and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (the Commission) appeals from an order of the district court granting the plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction prohibiting the Commission's disclosure of certain documents obtained under its statutory information-gathering authority. The Commission had earlier made an administrative determination to release the documents to members of the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. This appeal requires us to resolve the parties' dispute concerning whether the Commission must comply with the information disclosure requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) when it receives a request for documents under the FOIA.
The plaintiffs are twelve manufacturers of television receivers who brought separate actions against the Commission, which were consolidated in the District of Delaware, to prevent the Commission's disclosure of information concerning television-related accidents which they had submitted pursuant to special orders and subpoenas duces tecum issued by the Commission. Amici curiae, the Consumers Union of the United States, Inc. (Consumers Union) and the Public Citizen's Health Research Group (Health Research Group), seek access to that information under the FOIA and have urged this Court to vacate the district court's order for failure of the court and litigants in this action to attempt to join them as parties in compliance with Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A brief survey of the factual background of this litigation will illuminate the issues joined by the parties and amici. Further factual information may be gleaned from the three published opinions of the district court that form the backdrop to this appeal. See GTE Sylvania Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 443 F.Supp. 1152 (D.Del.1977) (); GTE Sylvania Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 438 F.Supp. 208 (D.Del.1977) (); GTE Sylvania Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 404 F.Supp. 352 (D.Del.1975) ().
Shortly after its creation in 1973, the Commission became concerned about the safety of television sets. That concern led to the publication, on March 22, 1974, of a notice of a proposed hearing concerning potential hazards to the public from the operation of television sets and a request that manufacturers submit all reports on television-related accidents that they had collected since 1969. 39 Fed.Reg. 10,929 (1974). Unsatisfied with the manufacturers' response to this request, the Commission issued special orders on May 13, 1974, pursuant to section 27(b)(1) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2076(b)(1), requiring twenty-five television manufacturers to submit the information previously requested. In the cover letter accompanying the special orders the Commission encouraged compliance by stating that the information would be received in confidence and not made available to the public, at least initially. The Commission, noting the possibility that the submitted information might be the object of FOIA requests, instructed the manufacturers to identify documents claimed to be exempt from public disclosure. Most of the manufacturers followed this suggestion.
Still unsatisfied with the amount of data supplied by the manufacturers, the Commission, on July 26, 1974, issued subpoenas duces tecum to certain manufacturers, including all of the plaintiffs here, ordering each of them to furnish the Commission with "TV-related accident reports." The statutory authority for the issuance of such subpoenas is contained in section 27(b)(3) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2076(b)(3).
The district court found, in its opinion granting plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Chemical Corp. v. Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
...see § 6 of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2055(a)(2) (1982), interpreted in GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumer Prod. Safety Commn., 598 F.2d 790, 802-808 (3d Cir.1979), aff'd, 447 U.S. 102, 100 S.Ct. 2051, 64 L.Ed.2d 766 (1980), and Fountainhead Group, Inc. v. Consumer Prod. Safet......
-
United States v. City of Detroit
...see7 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1609 (3d ed. 2001); see also GTE Sylvania v. Consumer Product Safety, 598 F.2d 790, 798–99 (3d Cir.1979) (recognizing the power of the court to raise the issue sua sponte but declining to do so where “[the parties......
-
Wymbs v. Republican State Executive Committee of Florida
...Tradesmen's Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102, 106-08, 88 S.Ct. 733, 736-37, 19 L.Ed.2d 936 (1968); GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumer Prods. Safety Comm'n, 598 F.2d 790, aff'd on other grounds, 447 U.S. 102, 100 S.Ct. 2051, 64 L.Ed.2d 766 (1980); Haby v. Stanolind Oil & Gas, 225 F.2d......
-
At & T v. F.C.C.
...Exemption 7(C)). 3. CompTel cites two cases, Chrysler, 441 U.S. 281, 99 S.Ct. 1705, 60 L.Ed.2d 208, and GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Comm'n, 598 F.2d 790 (3d Cir. 1979), which it claims stand for the proposition that the district courts, not the courts of appeals, have juri......
-
CHAPTER 10 HANDLING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
...Fisher v. Renegotiation Board, 473 F.2d 109 (D.C. Cir. 1972). [24] Accord, GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 598 F.2d 790 (3d Cir. 1979) aff'd 447 U.S. 102 (1980); Superior Oil Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 563 F.2d 191 (5th Cir. 1977). [25] Accord, Co......