Goodfriend Western Corp. v. Fuchs

• Decision Date: 06 May 1976
• Docket Number: No. 76-1116,76-1116
• Citation: 535 F.2d 145
• Parties: 92 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2466, 78 Lab.Cas. P 11,409 GOODFRIEND WESTERN CORP., d/b/a Wrangler Wranch, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert S. FUCHS, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Page 145

535 F.2d 145

92 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2466, 78 Lab.Cas. P 11,409

GOODFRIEND WESTERN CORP., d/b/a Wrangler Wranch, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert S. FUCHS, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 76-1116.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Argued April 6, 1976.

Decided May 6, 1976.

Abigail Cooley, Asst. Gen. Counsel for Special Litigation, Washington, D. C., with whom John S. Irving, Jr., Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, and Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C., were on memorandum in support of motion for summary reversal.

Harold N. Mack, Boston, Mass., with whom Philip Moss and Morgan, Brown, Kearns & Joy, Boston, Mass., were on memorandum in support of opposition to motion for summary reversal.

Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, McENTEE and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court requiring the National Labor Relations Board to disclose affidavits that the Board had obtained from employees in connection with pending unfair labor practice proceedings at which the affiants were expected to testify, and enjoining the proceedings until after the required disclosure is made. For the reasons stated in Title Guarantee Co. v. NLRB, --- F.2d ---- (2d Cir. 1976), we reverse.

This case parallels Title Guarantee in nearly all material respects. Plaintiff, a company faced with unfair labor practice charges, sought to obtain copies of all written statements in the NLRB's case file, first by filing a request with the regional director, then by appealing to the general counsel, and finally by bringing this action in the district court. Disclosure was sought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and resisted on the primary ground that the statements in question were exempt from the requirements of the Act as "investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes" whose production would "interfere with law enforcement proceedings" under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). The district court examined the legislative history and concluded, citing the district court opinion in Title Guarantee, 407 F.Supp. 498 (S.D.N.Y.1975), that the applicability of the claimed exemption must be decided on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the agency claim of "interference with law enforcement proceedings" was warranted. After in camera inspection of the materials in question, the court concluded that the claims were not justified and accordingly ordered their disclosure.

In Title Guarantee, the second circuit, reversing the district court, held that all statements of employees obtained in connection with unfair labor practice proceedings pending before the NLRB are exempt from disclosure under § 552(b)(7)(A). We adopt that holding here, and, having little to add to Judge Oakes's able opinion, with which we are in substantial agreement, confine ourselves to a discussion of the argument that this case is distinguishable.

In pressing this argument, plaintiff focuses on the timing and scope of the district court's order. Plaintiff points out, as did the district court, that the order is limited to affidavits of witnesses who had already committed themselves to testifying at a hearing that was scheduled to take place twenty-four hours after the order...