Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 79-3964

Decision Date20 December 1979
Docket NumberNo. 79-3964,79-3964
Citation609 F.2d 736
PartiesCOASTAL STATES GAS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

William R. Pakalka, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

James R. Gough, Asst. U.S. Atty., Houston, Tex., Alexander Humphrey, IV, Atty., Dept. of Energy, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before CHARLES CLARK, VANCE and SAM D. JOHNSON, Jr., Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Coastal States Gas Corporation (Coastal States) seeks to stay enforcement pending appeal of an adverse judgment rendered by the District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge John V. Singleton, Jr., presiding. In the trial court action, Coastal States sought to prevent the Department of Energy (DOE) from releasing any of its trade secrets and confidential and proprietary data to Alexander Grant & Company, a private accounting firm. On January 17, 1979, the DOE formally notified Coastal States that Alexander Grant & Company had contracted with the DOE to perform an audit of Coastal States' non-product costs for the period from the middle of 1973 to the end of 1976. This notification indicated that Alexander Grant & Company was required to keep confidential any information that Coastal States regarded as confidential or proprietary. Coastal States sued the DOE for a declaration that the contract between the DOE and Alexander Grant & Company was an unlawful delegation of a statutory function. Coastal States also sought to enjoin the DOE from releasing, and from requiring Coastal States to release, any of Coastal States' confidential or proprietary data to Alexander Grant & Company.

This Court must consider four factors to determine whether Coastal States has shown sufficient reason to grant a stay of judgment pending appeal. These factors are: (1) Whether Coastal States has made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits; (2) Whether Coastal States has made a showing of irreparable injury if this Court does not grant the stay; (3) Whether the stay would substantially harm other parties; and (4) Whether the stay would serve the public interest. See Belcher v. Birmingham Trust National Bank, 395 F.2d 685 (5th Cir. 1968).

Coastal States has failed to make a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits. Coastal States first contends that the DOE contract with Alexander Grant & Company is an illegal delegation under 42 U.S.C. § 7252. That section provides, "except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the Secretary may delegate any of his functions to such officers and employees of the Department as he may designate . . .." If 42 U.S.C. § 7252 stood alone, it might offer some support for Coastal States' position. But 42 U.S.C. § 7256 specifically authorizes the Secretary of the DOE to enter into contracts like the one between the DOE and Alexander Grant & Company. "The Secretary is authorized to enter into and perform such contracts . . . with . . . private organizations and persons . . . as he may deem to be necessary or appropriate to carry out the functions now or hereafter invested in the Secretary."

Coastal States also contends that the DOE contract with Alexander Grant & Company, contemplates an illegal disclosure of confidential data in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 773(b). Congress has stated, however, that 15 U.S.C. § 773(b) authorizes disclosure of confidential information to persons performing functions for the Administrator of the Federal Energy Administration. * S.Conf.Rep. No. 93-788, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., Reprinted in (1974) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 2939, 2972, 2979. 15 U.S.C. § 773(b)(1) reads as follows:

(b) Subject to the provisions of this chapter, section 552 of Title 5 shall apply to public disclosure of information by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • United States v. State of Tex.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • July 30, 1981
    ...Finally, the movant must show that the stay of equitable relief will serve the public interest. Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 609 F.2d 736 (5th Cir. 1979) (per curiam); Fortune v. Molpus, 431 F.2d 799, 804 (5th Cir. 1970); Pitcher v. Laird, 415 F.2d 743, 744-45 (5th Cir.......
  • U.S. v. Baylor University Medical Center, 83-1398
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • July 15, 1983
    ...harm the other parties, and (4) whether the granting of the stay would serve the public interest. See Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 609 F.2d 736, 737 (5th Cir.1979); Fortune v. Molpus, 431 F.2d 799, 804 (5th Cir.1970); and Belcher v. Birmingham Trust National Bank, 395 F......
  • Vine v. PLS Fin. Servs.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • September 9, 2019
    ...and (4) where the public interest lies." Weingarten Realty Investors, 661 F.3d at 910; see also Coastal States Gas Corporation v. Department of Energy, 609 F.2d 736, 737 (5th Cir. 1979) (providing the same 4-factor test); Fortune v. Molpus, 431 F.2d 799, 804 (5th Cir. 1970) (providing the s......
  • Ruiz v. Estelle
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • June 26, 1981
    ...the other parties, and (4) whether the granting of the stay would serve the public interest. See Coastal States Gas Corporation v. Department of Energy, 609 F.2d 736, 737 (5th Cir. 1979); Fortune v. Molpus, 431 F.2d 799, 804 (5th Cir. 1970); Belcher v. Birmingham Trust National Bank, 395 F.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT