Ditlow v. Brinegar
| Decision Date | 27 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-1984.,73-1984. |
| Citation | 494 F.2d 1073 |
| Parties | Clarence DITLOW et al. v. Claude S. BRINEGAR, Secretary of the Department of Transportation, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
David M. Cohen, Atty. Dept. of Justice, with whom Irving Jaffe, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Harold H. Titus, Jr., U. S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, and Walter H. Fleischer, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for appellants. Morton Hollander, Leonard Schaitman, Attys., Dept. of Justice, also entered an appearance for appellants.
Larry P. Ellsworth, Washington, D. C., with whom Ronald L. Plesser and Alan B. Morrison, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellees.
Before McGOWAN, ROBINSON and ROBB, Circuit Judges.
The only issue on this appeal is whether appellees have a right of access under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, to correspondence between the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and automobile manufacturers in connection with pending safety defect investigations.1 The District Court, in an opinion reported at 362 F.Supp. 1321 (D.D.C.1973), ruled with respect to this correspondence that appellants had not made out their claims of exemption under exemptions 4 and 7 of the Act. We find it necessary to deal only with the latter.
Exemption 7 involves investigatory files compiled for law enforcement purposes, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7). As the District Court recognized (at p. 1325), there is no dispute that the correspondence in question became part of NHTSA's investigatory file. Although the court also recognized that the correspondence in question "could conceivably lead to a civil enforcement proceeding," it went on to conclude that "the agency has not made the required showing that disclosure of the files sought is likely to create a concrete prospect of serious harm to its law enforcement efficiency,'" citing for this proposition, and quoting from, a decision of a division of this court. Weisberg v. Department of Justice, No. 71-1026 slip opinion dated February 23, 1973.2
The division's opinion in Weisberg was, however, subsequently vacated by an order granting rehearing en banc; and the en banc disposition by this court of Weisberg, 160 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 489 F.2d 1195 (decided October 24, 1973), compels reversal of the result reached in this instance by the District Court. The court en banc in Weisberg held that, if the documents in issue are clearly to be classified as "investigatory files compiled for law enforcement purposes," the exemption...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Robbins Tire and Rubber Company
...of investigation and enforcement proceedings," material found in an investigatory file is entirely exempt. In Ditlow v. Brinegar, 161 U.S.App.D.C. 154, 494 F.2d 1073 (1974), the court indicated that, after Weisberg, the only question before it was whether the requested material was found in......
-
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Schlesinger
...(W.D.Mo.1973), 58 F.R.D. 97, 98, n. 1. 24 See Ditlow v. Volpe (D.C.D.1973), 362 F.Supp. 1321, 1324, rev. on other grounds, 161 U.S.App.D.C. 154, 494 F.2d 1073. 25 The holding in this case was summarized in O'Reilly, ibid., p. " * * * The district court held * * * that the general nature of ......
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck Co
...F.2d 370 (1974); Rural Housing Alliance v. Department of Agriculture, 162 U.S.App.D.C. 122, 498 F.2d 73 (1974); Ditlow v. Brinegar, 161 U.S.App.D.C. 154, 155, 494 F.2d 1073, 1074, cert. denied, 419 U.S. 974, 95 S.Ct. 238, 42 L.Ed.2d 188 (1974); Aspin v. Department of Defense, 160 U.S.App.D.......
-
Pratt v. Webster
...Ed. 2d 772 (1974); Aspin v. Department of Defense, 160 U.S. App. D.C. 231, 491 F.2d 24 (D.C.Cir.1973); Ditlow v. Brinegar, 161 U.S. App. D.C. 154, 494 F.2d 1073 (D.C.Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 974, 95 S. Ct. 238, 42 L. Ed. 2d 188 (1974); and Center for Nat'l Policy Review on......