Fetch U.S. DOJ Blog Entries
doj_blog_entries.RdFor accessing U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) open data blog entries.
Arguments
- n_results
The number of results to return. By default, 50 results are returned.
- search_direction
Set to ASC or DESC to fetch data starting from the most or least recent entries. By default, data is sorted in descending order (the most recent entries).
- keyword
Only return results containing a keyword. Keyword can be a single word, a list or words, or a regex separated by the pipe delimiter
- clean
Set to FALSE to return data without additional cleaning. By default HTML tags, white space, line breaks, and other messy characters are removed. Epoch time is converted to year-month-day format.
Examples
# Return a dataframe with 50 of the latest records. Data is cleaned.
latest_records <- doj_blog_entries()
head(latest_records)
#> body
#> 1 The mission and resources of the Department of Justice should be understood by all communities we serve including the approximately 25.6 million individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP). Yet language barriers often prevent many communities from understanding their rights, reporting crimes, or otherwise having full and equal access to the Department’s services and resources. The Department’s Equity Action Plan, released earlier this year, focused on improving engagement with stakeholders in underserved communities and disadvantaged groups and reducing language barriers especially for LEP individuals.As a step toward that, today the Department is now releasing the strategic plan in Spanish and key excerpts in the other top languages spoken by the LEP general public in the United States: Chinese (simplified and traditional), Vietnamese, Korean, and Tagalog. The Department continues to prioritize actions to help ensure language access is not a barrier to LEP individuals participation in Department priorities including access to a plan that guides our efforts across the Department as we continue to fulfill our responsibilities to the American people.For more information on our efforts to uphold the rule of law, to keep our country safe, and to protect civil rights, please visit Strategic Plan-Multilingual Versions.
#> 2 From September 19 to 29, 2022, ICITAP-Philippines delivered three 3-day iterations of Best Practices in High Security & Terrorist Detainee Prison Management training, to members of the Philippines Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) as well as leadership of the BJMP Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism (P/CVE) Center and Directorate of Intelligence. The training instruction was conducted by three terrorism and P/CVE subject matter experts and ICITAP-Philippines’ Senior Corrections Advisor. Training topics included a range of instruction specific to understanding the current threat of terrorism in the South Asia region, best practices in terrorist detainee assessment, evaluation, categorization and classification, case management, ethical leadership, and intelligence unit familiarization. The instructors also led the students through several scenario-based problem-solving sessions that challenged the members of BJMP, to apply their training to resolve the scenarios they were presented. Class participation was consistently enthusiastic and clearly demonstrated each class’s desire to learn and understand the proper application of the lessons learned. The back-to-back training approach was designed around BJMP’s work duty assignments, to ensure the training of 84 staff members of BJMP in a timely manner. This is part of a U.S. State Department Counterterrorism Bureau-funded initiative.
#> 3 As the fiscal year draws to a close, the Office of Information Policy (OIP) looks to the beginning of the FOIA reporting season. Today, OIP announces the deadlines for the submission of agencies' Fiscal Year 2022 Annual FOIA Reports, Fiscal Year 2023 Quarterly FOIA Reports, and 2023 Chief FOIA Officer Reports, along with updated resources. These three reports serve a vital role in illustrating the steps taken and the progress made by agencies in administering the FOIA, and provide valuable information about how agencies promote efficiency, make more information available proactively, and use technology to improve FOIA administration.Agencies are required to submit their Fiscal Year 2022 Annual FOIA Reports using the FOIA.gov Annual Report Tool. OIP has continued to refine this tool in light of agency feedback. OIP has also updated the Department of Justice Annual FOIA Report Handbook, a key resource that agencies should consult when compiling their Annual FOIA Reports. Agency personnel responsible for completing their agency's report are encouraged to attend OIP's Annual FOIA Report Refresher Training on October 4, 2022. Agencies should take note of the following deadlines, which are also summarized in Agency Reporting Obligations At-A-Glance, to ensure that they can satisfy all FOIA reporting obligations in the upcoming year:FISCAL YEAR 2022 ANNUAL FOIA REPORTNovember 14, 2022 – Agencies are required to submit their Fiscal Year 2022 Annual FOIA Report to OIP for review and clearance through FOIA.gov.No later than March 1, 2023 – Agencies are required to post the final human readable and NIEM-XML versions of their Fiscal Year 2022 Annual FOIA Report on their websites.FISCAL YEAR 2023 QUARTERLY FOIA REPORTSJanuary 27, 2023 – Quarter 1 data is required to be posted.April 28, 2023 – Quarter 2 data is required to be posted.July 28, 2023 – Quarter 3 data is required to be posted.October 27, 2023 – Quarter 4 data is required to be posted.For guidance on the requirements for completing the Quarterly Reports, please see OIP’s guidance on quarterly reporting (updated October 2021).2023 CHIEF FOIA OFFICER REPORTSJanuary 17, 2023 – Deadline for agencies receiving more than 50 requests in Fiscal Year 2021 to submit their 2023 Chief FOIA Officer Reports to OIP for review and clearance.February 10, 2023 – Deadline for agencies receiving 50 requests or less that choose to report to submit their Chief FOIA Officer Report to OIP.March 13, 2023 – Agencies are required to post their 2023 Chief FOIA Officer Reports online.For guidance on the requirements for completing the 2023 Chief FOIA Officer Report, please see OIP's 2023 Chief FOIA Officer Report Guidelines.If you have any questions regarding any of the deadlines noted above or the requirements for any of the reports, please contact OIP’s FOIA Compliance Team at (202) 514-3642 (FOIA). You can also find all of these reporting deadlines on the Reports page of OIP’s website.
#> 4 The Office of Information Policy (OIP) has posted updates to its compilation of Exemption 3 resources, aimed at assisting agencies in their administration of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and increasing public understanding of the use of Exemption 3. These materials are located on the FOIA Resources page of OIP's site. The first resource is an updated list of Statutes Found to Qualify Under Exemption 3 of the FOIA. This resource contains the most current listing of federal statutes that federal courts have affirmatively found to qualify as Exemption 3 statutes. The second resource is the Fiscal Year 2021 list of Statutes used in Annual FOIA Reports in conjunction with Exemption 3 of the FOIA. This resource includes a listing of the statutes used by all federal agencies subject to the FOIA, as reported in their FY 2021 Annual FOIA Reports. CSV and PDF versions of this resource provide the citation of each statute used, the type of information protected by the statute, the agencies that cited each statute, and the number of times the statute was cited during the preceding fiscal year. Charts dating back to FY 2010 are also available on OIP's FOIA Resources page. Agencies that have any questions regarding Exemption 3 statutes, affiliated court decisions, or a statute's impact on FOIA administration may reach out to OIP for advice through the FOIA Counselor Service by calling (202) 514-FOIA (3642). To receive additional information from OIP, be sure to subscribe to FOIA Post email updates.
#> 5 From September 19 to 20, 2022, the ICITAP-Indonesia Criminal Investigation Development Project collaborated with the Office of Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training (OPDAT) to provide the seventh in a series of regional TIP Workshops focusing on Victim Restitution and Assistance. The workshop was held in Seminyak, Bali Province, and included ten police investigators and ten regional prosecutors. Presenters included representatives from ICITAP, OPDAT, the Indonesian National Police (INP) District Office in Bali, the High Prosecutor's Office in Bali, INP Headquarters in Jakarta, the Indonesia Attorney General's Office in Jakarta, the Indonesia Victim & Witness Protection Agency, and the United Nations International Organization for Migration. Opening remarks were provided by the Head of the Denpasar District Prosecutor's Office and by the Deputy Head of the General Crimes Directorate from the INP District Office in Bali. The timing of this workshop is pertinent because Bali will host the International G20 Summit in November 2022, an event expected to generate a sharp increase in human sex trafficking. This event was delivered with support of and in coordination with the State Department’s Bureau of Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL).
#> 6 MARTIN ESTRADA SWORN IN AS UNITED STATES ATTORNEY On September 19, Martin Estrada was sworn in as the United States Attorney for the Central District of California by Chief United States District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. After being confirmed by the United States Senate on September 13, Mr. Estrada was given a four-year appointment by President Joseph Biden. He is now the district’s chief law enforcement officer and oversees the largest United States Attorney’s Office outside of Washington, D.C. The office, which currently employs approximately 270 attorneys, serves approximately 20 million residents in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.Prior to becoming the United States Attorney, Estrada was a partner at the law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson where he focused on trials, complex litigation and investigations. There, in addition to representing corporate clients, Estrada handled high-impact pro bono matters in the areas of education, immigration and equal justice. Mr. Estrada graduated with distinction from Stanford Law School and earned his undergraduate degree in history from the University of California, Irvine, where he graduated magna cum laude. Estrada served as a law clerk for U.S. District Judge Robert J. Timlin of the Central District of California and Judge Arthur L. Alarcón of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
#> changed created date
#> 1 2022-10-04 2022-10-04 2022-10-04
#> 2 2022-12-01 2022-12-01 2022-09-29
#> 3 2022-09-28 2022-09-28 2022-09-28
#> 4 2022-09-27 2022-09-27 2022-09-27
#> 5 2022-12-01 2022-12-01 2022-09-20
#> 6 2022-11-17 2022-11-16 2022-09-19
#> teaser
#> 1 Today the Department is now releasing key excerpts of the strategic plan in Spanish and key exceprts in the other top languages spoken by the LEP general public in the United States: Spanish, Chinese (simplified and traditional), Vietnamese, Korean, and Tagalog. The Department continues to prioritize actions to help ensure language access is not a barrier to LEP individuals participation in Department priorities including access to a plan that guides our efforts across the Department as we continue to fulfill our responsibilities to the American people.\n
#> 2 From September 19 to 29, 2022, ICITAP-Philippines delivered three 3-day iterations of Best Practices in High Security & Terrorist Detainee Prison Management training, to members of the Philippines Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) as well as leadership of the BJMP Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism (P/CVE) Center and Directorate of Intelligence.\n
#> 3 The Office of Information Policy has issued reporting deadlines for agency FOIA reports. \n
#> 4 The Office of Information Policy (OIP) has posted updates to its compilation of FOIA Exemption 3 resources.\n
#> 5 From September 19 to 20, 2022, the ICITAP-Indonesia Criminal Investigation Development Project collaborated with the Office of Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training (OPDAT) to provide the seventh in a series of regional TIP Workshops focusing on Victim Restitution and Assistance. \n
#> 6 <NA>
#> title
#> 1 DOJ makes key excerpts of Strategic Plan available in 5 languages
#> 2 Philippines: ICITAP Delivers Three Iterations of Best Practices in High Security & Terrorist Detainee Prison Management Training
#> 3 Announcing Upcoming FOIA Reporting Deadlines
#> 4 Key FOIA Resources: 2022 Updates to Exemption 3 Statutes
#> 5 Indonesia: ICITAP Provides Trafficking in Persons Workshop in Bali Province in Preparation for G20 Summit
#> 6 MARTIN ESTRADA SWORN IN AS UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
#> url
#> 1 https://www.justice.gov/opa/blog/doj-makes-key-excerpts-strategic-plan-available-5-languages
#> 2 https://www.justice.gov/criminal-icitap/blog/philippines-icitap-delivers-three-iterations-best-practices-high-security
#> 3 https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/announcing-upcoming-foia-reporting-deadlines-0
#> 4 https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/key-foia-resources-2022-updates-exemption-3-statutes
#> 5 https://www.justice.gov/criminal-icitap/blog/indonesia-icitap-provides-trafficking-persons-workshop-bali-province
#> 6 https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/blog/martin-estrada-sworn-united-states-attorney
#> uuid vuuid
#> 1 21366f52-1911-45fd-915a-36ab05d1e928 7a77f6cc-5212-4536-8909-e1b79832c306
#> 2 c7bcf4dd-1074-40c6-8def-9d2354d4812d 482a4c0d-6a5f-4267-9df8-0064888f16da
#> 3 a1fd3fb9-3e16-460d-991a-d344011f84ce d596d383-0fd9-4415-a5fb-e2f7dabae723
#> 4 e36a598e-5936-41de-8ec9-2fdf44f0d026 75cae2d6-5d47-4ecf-89cd-745803476f19
#> 5 07d240a3-df8e-4083-bc11-a1eb82210d38 1b60da24-c028-48a1-b1c4-fb2e661d0c83
#> 6 18b24970-d306-4b60-a426-8f232f0609b5 9c69cbde-0c38-4c12-86b9-180ccab4beac
#> name
#> 1 Department of Justice, Office for Access to Justice
#> 2 Criminal Division, Criminal - International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program
#> 3 Office of Information Policy
#> 4 Office of Information Policy
#> 5 Criminal Division, Criminal - International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program
#> 6 USAO - California, Central
# Return a dataframe with 15 of the earliest records. Data is not cleaned.
earliest_records <- doj_blog_entries(n_results = 15, search_direction = "ASC", clean = FALSE)
head(earliest_records)
#> body
#> 1 <strong>FOIA Update <br />Vol. III, No. 1 <br />1981</strong> <h2>Text of Freeedom of Information Act</h2> <strong> <em>Showing Changes Proposed in S. 1751/H.R. 4805</em> </strong> <p> <strong>(Added words are italicized; deleted words are bracketed.) </strong> </p> <p>§ 552. Public Information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings </p> <p>(a) Each agency shall make available to the public information as follows: </p> <p>(1) Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public-- </p><blockquote> <p>(A) descriptions of its central and field organization and the established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a uniformed service, the members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain information, make submittals or requests, or obtain decisions; </p><p>(B) statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available; </p> <p>(C) rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations; </p> <p>(D) substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency; and </p> <p>(E) each amendment, revision or repeal of the foregoing. </p> </blockquote><p>Except to the extent that a person has actual and timely notice of the terms thereof, a person may not in any manner be required to resort to, or be adversely affected by, a matter required to be published in the Federal Register and not so published. For the purpose of this paragraph, matter reasonably available to the class of persons affected thereby is deemed published in the Federal Register when incorporated by reference therein with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register. </p><p>(2) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying-- </p><blockquote> <p>(A) final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders, made in the adjudication of cases[;], <em>if the final opinions or orders are cited, used, or relied on as precedent by the agency; </em></p> <p>(B) those statements of policy and interpretations which have been adopted by the agency and are not published in the Federal Register; and </p> <p>(C) administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member of the public; </p> </blockquote><p>unless the materials are promptly published and copies offered for sale. To the extent required to prevent a<em>n</em> [clearly] unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, an agency may delete identifying details when it makes available or publishes an opinion, statement of policy, interpretation, or staff manual or instruction. However, in each case the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Each agency shall also maintain and make available for public inspection and copying current indexes providing identifying information for the public as to any matter issued, adopted, or promulgated after July 4, 1967, and required by this paragraph to be made available or published. Each agency shall promptly publish, quarterly or more frequently, and distribute (by sale or otherwise) copies of each index or supplements thereto unless it determines by order published in the Federal Register that the publication would be unnecessary and impracticable, in which case the agency shall nonetheless provide copies of such index on request at a cost not to exceed the direct cost of duplication. A final order, opinion, statement of policy, interpretation, or staff manual or instruction that affects a member of the public may be relied on, used, or cited as precedent by an agency against a party other than an agency only if-- </p><blockquote> <blockquote> <p>(i) it has been indexed and either made available or published as provided by this paragraph; or </p> <p>(ii) the party has actual and timely notice of the terms thereof. </p> </blockquote> </blockquote><p>(3)<em>(A)</em> Except with respect to the records made available under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, each agency, upon any request <em>by any United States person</em> for records which [(A)] <em>(i)</em> reasonably describes such records and [(B)] <em>(ii)</em> is made in accordance with published rules stating the time, place, fees (if any), and procedures to be followed, shall make the records promptly available to [any person] <em>the requester.</em> </p><blockquote> <p><em>(B) A requester shall not make or maintain a request under this paragraph for records relating to the subject matter of an ongoing judicial or adjudicatory administrative proceeding (civil or criminal) to which the requester, or any person upon whose behalf the requester acts in making the request, is a party </em></p> <p><em>(C) An agency may require by regulation that each request for records under this section include declarations by the requester that the requester, or any person upon whose behalf the requester acts in making the request, is: </em></p> <blockquote> <p><em>(i) a United States person as defined in this section, and </em></p> <p><em>(ii) not barred by subsection (a) (3) (B) from making the request. </em></p> </blockquote> <p><em>A request that does not comply with any such regulation requirement is not a proper request under this section. </em></p> </blockquote><p>(4) (A) In order to carry out the provisions of this section, each agency shall promulgate regulations, pursuant to notice and receipt of public comment, specifying a uniform schedule of fees applicable to all constituent units of such agency. <em>The schedule may provide for the payment of all costs reasonably attributable to responding to the request, including the costs of searching for, reviewing, and duplicating requested records.</em> [Such fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document search and duplication and provide for recovery of only the direct costs of such search and duplication.] <em>If the requested records contain commercially valuable technological or reference information, generated or acquired by the government at substantial cost to the public, fees may be charged which reflect the fair market value or royalties or both, in addition to or in lieu of any processing fees otherwise chargeable, taking into account such factors as the estimated commercial value of the information, its cost to the government, and any public interest served by its disclosure</em>. Documents shall be furnished without charge or at a reduced charge where the agency determines, <em>in the exercise of its discretion,</em> that waiver or reduction of the fee is in the public interest because furnishing the information can be considered as primarily benefiting the general public. </p><blockquote> <p><em>(B) Each agency shall promulgate regulations, pursuant to notice and receipt of public comment, specifying procedures by which--</em></p> <blockquote> <p><em>(i) a submitter may be required to designate, at the time of submission, any information consisting of trade secrets, commercial or financial information, or other commercially valuable information, which is exempt from disclosure under subsection (b)(4);</em></p> <p><em>(ii) the agency shall notify the submitter that a request has been made for information provided by the submitter within a reasonable time prior to a decision to release any such information;</em></p> <p><em>(iii) the submitter may, within 10 working day of the forwarding of such notification, submit to the agency written objection to such disclosure specifying all grounds upon which it is contended that the information should not be disclosed; and </em></p> <p><em>(iv) the agency shall notify the submitter of any final decision to release such information.</em></p> </blockquote> <p><em>(C) An agency is not required to notify a submitter pursuant to subparagraph (B) if-- </em></p> <blockquote> <p><em>(i) the information requested is not designated by the submitter as exempt from disclosure in accordance with agency regulations promulgated pursuant to paragraph (4)(B)(i), if such designation is required by the agency; </em></p> <p><em>(ii) the agency determines, prior to giving such notice, that the request should be denied; </em></p> <p><em>(iii) the disclosure is required by law (other than this section); or </em></p> <p><em>(iv) the information lawfully has been published or otherwise made available to the public. </em></p> </blockquote> <p><em>(D) If a submitter has objected pursuant to subparagraph (B)(iii), to disclosure of information that the agency determines to be exempt from disclosure under subsection (b)(4), the agency shall not release such information unless the agency determines in writing that the failure to disclose the records would injure an overriding public interest and disclosure is not otherwise prohibited by law</em>. </p> <p>[(B)]<em> (E)</em> On complaint<em> filed by a requester within 90 days from the date of final agency action or by a submitter prior to the release of submitted information,</em> the district court of the United States in the district in which the complainant resides, or has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia, has jurisdiction--</p> <blockquote> <p><em>(i)</em> to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from [the complainant.] <em>the requester; or <p>(ii) to enjoin the agency from any disclosure of records which was objected to by a submitter under subparagraph (B)(iii) or which would have been objected to had notice been given as required by subparagraph (B)(ii). </p></em> </p></blockquote> <p><em>(F) In an action based on a complaint--</em></p> <blockquote> <p><em>(i) by a requester, the court shall have jurisdiction over any submitter of information </em> <em>contained in the requested records, and any such submitter may intervene as of right in the action; and </em></p> <p><em>(ii) by a submitier, the court shall have jurisdiction over any requester of records containing information which the submitter seeks to have withheld, and any such requester may intervene as a matter of right in the action. </em></p> </blockquote> <p><em>(G) The agency that is the subject of the complaint shall promptly, upon service of a complaint--</em></p> <blockquote> <p><em>(i) seeking the production of records, notify each submitter of information contained in the requested records that the complaint was filed; and </em></p> <p><em>(ii) seeking the withholding of records, notify each requester of the records that the complaint was filed. </em></p> </blockquote> <p><em>(H) In any action in which a requester is an intervenor or is joined the court shall on timely motion of the requester transfer the action to a district court which would have had jurisdiction had the action been brought by the requester, unless the court otherwise directs for good cause shown</em>. </p> <p><em>(I) In a case in which a record is withheld under subsection (b)(1), the court shall not enjoin the agency from withholding such record unless the agency's action is found to be arbitrary or capricious</em>. In [such a case] <em>all other cases</em>, the court shall determine the matter de novo [,]. [and] <em>The court</em> may examine the contents of [such] <em>requested</em> agency records in camera to determine whether such records or any part thereof shall be withheld under any of the exemptions set forth in subsection (b) of this section [,]. [and] <em>T</em>[t]he burden is on the agency to sustain its action <em>to withhold information and the burden is on any submitter seeking the withholding of information. The court shall maintain under seal any affidavit or record submitted in camera to the court in support of the applicability of any exemption, and shall stay any order requiring the release of records pending final judicial resolution of any appeal from such order. </em></p> <p>[(C)]<em>(J)</em> Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the defendant shall serve an answer or otherwise plead to any complaint made under this subsection within thirty days after service upon the defendant of the pleading in which such complaint is made, unless the court otherwise directs for good cause shown. </p> <p>[(D)] <em>(K)</em> Except as to cases the court considers of greater importance, proceedings before the district court, as authorized by this subsection, and appeals therefrom, take precedence on the docket over all cases and shall be assigned for hearing and trial or for argument at the earliest practicable date and expedited in every way. </p> <p>[(E)] <em>(L)</em> The court may assess against the United States <em>or any submitter who is a party to the litigation</em> reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case under this section in which the [complainant] <em>requester</em> has substantially prevailed. </p> <p>[(F)] <em>(M)</em> Whenever the court orders the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant and assesses against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs, and the court additionally issues a written finding that the circumstances surrounding the withholding raise questions whether the agency personnel acted arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to the withholding, the Special Counsel shall promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether disciplinary action is warranted against the officer or employee who was primarily responsible for the withholding. The Special Counsel, after investigation and consideration of the evidence submitted shall submit his findings and recommendations to the administrative authority of the agency concerned and shall send copies of the findings and recommendations to the officer or employees or his representative. The administrative authority shall take the corrective action that the Special Counsel recommends. </p> <p>[(G)] <em>(N)</em> In the event of noncompliance with the order of the court, the district court may punish for contempt the responsible employee, and in the case of a uniformed service, the responsible member. </p> </blockquote><p>(5) Each agency having more than one member shall maintain and make available for public inspection a record of the final votes of each member in every agency proceeding. </p><p>(6) (A) Each agency, upon request [for records] made under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection <em>for records which are sufficiently identified and limited that no more than eight working hours of search and review time are required to respond to the request, and which do not contain trade secrets, commercial or financial information, or other commercially valuable information provided by a submitter</em>, shall-- </p><blockquote><blockquote> <p>(i) determine within ten <em>working</em> days [(excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays)] after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with such request and shall immediately notify the person making such request of such determination and the reasons therefor, and of the right of such person to appeal to the head of the agency any adverse determination; and </p> <p>(ii) make a determination with respect to any appeal within twenty <em>working</em> days [(excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays)] after the receipt of such appeal. If on appeal the denial of the request for records is in whole or in part upheld, the agency shall notify the person making such request of the provisions for judicial review of that determination under paragraph (4) of this subsection. </p> </blockquote> <p>[(B) In unusual circumstances as specified in this subparagraph, the time limits prescribed in either clause (i) or clause (ii) of the subparagraph (A) may be extended by written notice to the person making such request setting forth the reasons for such extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. No such notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more than ten working days. As used in this subparagraph, "unusual circumstances" means, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular request-- </p> <blockquote> <p>(i) the need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request; </p> <p>(ii) the need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are demanded in a single request; or </p> <p>(iii) the need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject-matter interest therein.] </p> </blockquote> <p><em>(B) Except as provided in subparagraph (A), each agency, upon any request for records made under paragraph (1), (2) or (3) of this subsection shall-- </em></p> <blockquote> <p><em>(i) within thirty working days after the receipt of the request-- </em></p> <blockquote> <p><em>(a) determine whether to comply with such request, in whole or in part, and immediately notify the requester of such determination and the reasons therefor, and of the requester's right to appeal to the head of the agency any adverse determination; or </em></p> <p><em>(b) notify the requester of the estimated time period required for such determination, and the reasons therefor, such time period to be established in accordance with agency regulations promulgated hereunder but not to exceed one year; and </em></p> </blockquote> <p><em>(ii) within thirty working days after the receipt of an appeal-- </em></p> <blockquote> <p><em>(a) make a determination of the appeal; or </em></p> <p><em>(b) notify the requester of the estimated time period required for such determination, and the reasons therefor, such time period to be established in accordance with agency regulations promulgated hereunder but not to exceed six months. </em></p> </blockquote></blockquote> <p><em>If on appeal the denial of the request for records is in whole or in part upheld, the agency shall notify the requester of the provisions for judicial review of that determination under paragraph (4) of this subsection. </em></p> <p><em>(C) Each agency shall promulgate regulations, pursuant to notice and receipt of public comment, specifying the time periods under subparagraph (B). Such regulations shall provide for the shortest practicable time periods and shall take into account all relevant factors, including but not limited to--</em></p> <blockquote> <p>(<em>i) the volume of requests and appeals received by the agency; </em></p> <p><em>(ii) the resources available to the agency for the processing of such requests and appeals; </em></p> <p><em>(iii) the volume of records required to be searched to locate all records responsive to the request or appeal;</em></p> <p><em>(iv) the volume of responsive records required to be reviewed for release pursuant to the request or appeal;</em></p> <p><em>(v) the need to search for or review records maintained in field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the agency office processing the request or appeal; </em></p> <p><em>(vi) the character of the records requested;</em></p> <p><em> (vii) the need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest therein; and </em></p> <p><em>(viii) the need for notification of submitters of information and for consideration of any objections to disclosure made by such submitters.</em></p> </blockquote> <p><em>(D) Each agency shall promulgate regulations pursuant to notice and receipt of public comment, by which a requester who demonstrates a compelling need for expedited access to records and whose request for information will primarily benefit the general public may, as a matter of the agency's discretion, be given processing priority over other requesters.</em></p> <p>[(C)] <em>(E)</em> Any [person making a request to any agency for records under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection] <em>requester</em> shall be deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to such request if the agency fails to comply with the applicable time limit provisions of this paragraph. <em>If a requester files a complaint under paragraph (4)(E), the administrative remedies of a submitter of information contained in the records which are the subject of the request shall be deemed to have been exhausted.</em></p> <p>If the Government can show exceptional circumstances exist and that the agency is exercising due diligence in responding to the request, the court may retain jurisdiction and allow the agency additional time to complete its review of the records. Upon any determination by an agency to comply with a request for records, the records shall be made promptly available to [such a person making such request.]<em> the requester, except that if disclosure of records is objected to by a submitter pursuant to paragraph (4)(B)(iii), the agency shall not disclose the records for fifteen working days after notice of the final decision to release the requested information has been forwarded to the submitter</em>. Any notification of denial of any request for records under this subsection shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial of such request.</p> </blockquote><p><em>(7) An agency is not required to disclose any material requested under this subsection which consists of newspaper clippings, magazine articles, court records, publications available from the Government Printing Office, or any similar items which are in the public record or otherwise publicly available, but the agency shall inform the requester of the nature of such public source material</em>.</p><p> <em>(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed applicable in any way to the informant records maintained by a law enforcement agency under an informant's name or personal identifier, whenever access to such records is sought by a third party according to the informant's name or personal identifier.</em> </p> <p>(b) This section does not apply to matters that are-- </p> <p>(1) (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order; </p><p>(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [;], <em>including such materials as (A) manuals and instructions to investigators, inspectors, auditors, and negotiators, and (B) examination material used solely to determine individual qualifications for employment, promotion, and licensing; </em></p><p>(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; </p><p>(4) trade secrets, and commercial or financial information <em>or other commercially valuable information,</em> obtained from [a] <em>any</em> person [and] <em>if the information is</em> privileged or [confidential] <em>if its release may impair either the legitimate competitive, financial, or business interests of any person or the government's ability to obtain such information in the future; </em></p><p>(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency; </p><p>(6) [personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure]<em> records or information concerning individuals the release</em> of which would constitute a<em>n</em> [clearly] unwarranted invasion of personal privacy[;], <em>including compilations of lists of names and addresses that could be used for solicitation purposes; </em></p><p>(7) [investigatory] records <em>or information</em> compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such records or information would (A) [interfere with] <em>reveal investigatory information</em> <em>relating to an ongoing investigation</em> or enforcement proceeding[s], (B) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) <em>tend to</em> disclose the identity of a confidential source, <em>including any foreign, state, or other public agency or authority or any private institution that furnished information on a confidential basis,</em> and, in the case of a record <em>or information</em> compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, [confidential] information furnished [only] by [the] <em>a</em> confidential source, (E) disclose [investigative] techniques, [and] procedures, <em>guidelines, or priorities for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, </em>[<em>or</em>] (F) endanger the life or physical safety of [law enforcement personnel]<em> any natural person,</em> <em>or (G) disclose information relating to such categories of investigations of terrorism, organized crime, or foreign counterintelligence as are defined by the Attorney General by regulation or order; </em></p><p>(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; [or] </p><p>(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells[.]; </p><p> <em>(10) records generated by the United States or any party in connection with the settlement of a legal action in which the United States is a party or has an interest; or </em> </p><p> <em>(11) technical data that may not be exported lawfully outside the United States without an approval, authorization, or a license from an agency, unless the requester has obtained the appropriate approval, authorization, or license. </em> </p> <p>Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this subsection. </p> <p>(c) This section does not authorize withholding of information or limit the availability of records to the public, except as specifically stated in this section. This section is not authority to withhold information from Congress. </p> <p>(d) On or before March 1 of each calendar year, each agency shall submit a report covering the preceding <em>fiscal </em>[calendar] year to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President of the Senate for referral to the appropriate committees of the Congress. This report shall include--</p> <p>(1) the number of determinations made by such agency not to comply with requests for records made to such agency under subsection (a) and the reasons for each such determination; </p><p>(2) the number of appeals made by persons under subsection (a) (6) the result of such appeals, and the reason for the action upon each appeal that results in a denial of information; </p><p>(3) the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial of records requested under this section, and the number of instances of participation for each;</p><p>(4) the results of each proceeding conducted pursuant to subsection (a)(4)[(F)]<em>(M),</em> including a report of the disciplinary action taken against the officer or employee who was primarily responsible for improperly withholding records or an explanation of why disciplinary action was not taken; </p><p>(5) a copy of every rule made by such agency regarding this section; </p><p>(6) a copy of the fee schedule and the total amount of fees collected by the agency for making records available under this section; and </p><p>(7) such other information as indicates efforts to administer fully this section. </p> <p>The Attorney General shall submit an annual report on or before March 1 of each calendar year which shall include for the prior [calendar] <em>fiscal </em>year a listing of the number of cases arising under this section, the exemption involved in each case, the disposition of such case, and the cost, fees, and penalties assessed under subsections (a)(4)[(E)]<em>(L)</em>, [(F)]<em>(M)</em>, and [(G)]<em>(N)</em>. Such report shall also include a description of the efforts undertaken by the Department of Justice to encourage agency compliance with this section. </p> <p>(e) For purposes of this section [, the term]--</p> <p> (1) "agency" as defined in section 551(l) of this title includes any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency; </p><p> <em>(2) "submitter" means any person who has submitted to an agency (other than an intelligence agency) trade secrets, commercial or financial information (other than personal financial information), or other commercially valuable information, in which the person has a commercial or proprietary interest;</em> </p><em> <p>(3) "requester" means any person who makes or causes to be made, or on whose behalf is made, a proper request for disclosure of records under subsection (a); </p> <p>(4) "United States person" means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20)), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association that is a foreign power, as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. § 1801(a));</p> <p>(5) "working days" means every day excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and federal legal holidays; </p> <p>(6) "record" means existing documentation of information in any form, including computer tapes and discs, but does not include system software or documentation created for the personal convenience of any government employee or official.</p></em> <p> <br /></p><p> Go to: <a href="/oip/foi-upd.htm">FOIA Update Home Page</a> </p>
#> 2 <strong>FOIA Update <br />Vol. III, No. 1 <br />1981</strong> <h2>OILP Publishes 1981 <em>Case List</em></h2> <p>The new <em>Freedom of Information Case List</em> (September 1981 edition) published by the Office of Information Law and Policy (OILP) is available through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. </p> <p>The price of the <em>Case List</em>, an annual Justice Department publication, is $4.75. The stock number is 027-000-01127-6. </p> <p>Edited by Cheri L. McCracken, an attorney-adviser in OILP, the <em>Case List</em> includes approximately 300 new cases that have been added since the publication of the 1980 edition. It now contains a total of 1,339 FOIA case listings, arranged alphabetically, and is also indexed according to subject matter. </p> <p>In addition, it also contains listings of "reverse FOIA" cases, Privacy Act cases, Sunshine Act cases, and cases decided under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as well as the texts of the major access laws. </p> <p> <br /></p><p> Go to: <a href="/oip/foi-upd.htm">FOIA Update Home Page</a> </p>
#> 3 <strong>FOIA Update <br />Vol. III, No. 1 <br />1981</strong> <h2>FOIA Reform Proposed</h2> <p>Efforts to amend the Freedom of Information Act continue on Capitol Hill. </p> <p>Major highlights of the efforts to amend the FOIA have been the presentation of the Administration's proposal (see pp. 3-8 of <em>FOIA Update</em>) by Assistant Attorney General Jonathan C. Rose of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, and subsequent hearings on this proposal (S. 1751/H.R. 4805) and on a similar proposal, S. 1730, Senator Orrin G. Hatch's FOIA reform bill. Senator Hatch is chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Judiciary Committee. The Hatch subcommittee has held six hearings on the need for FOIA reform.</p> <p>In presenting the Administration's proposal on Oct. 15, Assistant Attorney General Rose declared that the Administration stands "fully committed to carrying out the philosophy and spirit of the Act." </p> <p>Rose told the Hatch subcommittee that the Administration is "concerned that in some instances the Freedom of Information Act has been used in ways that are inconsistent with the original objectives of the Congress." These include efforts for disclosures which have "interfered unduly with proper law enforcement activities and national security functions," Rose said. He also pointed to the considerable expense involved in FOIA processing and the diversion of agency resources from program responsibilities. </p> <p>The Office of Legal Policy began its comprehensive review of the need for FOIA reform in May of this year by asking federal agencies to comment on problems encountered in administering the FOIA and to recommend specific changes in the law. The Administration's legislative proposal represents a synthesis of these recommendations. </p> <p>The Administration's proposal includes two additional exemptions to the existing nine; clarification of several existing exemptions; modifications of provisions to allow for new time limits and fee assessments; additional procedures and protections for business information; and new provisions which would preclude use of the FOIA by persons other than U.S. citizens and by parties to lawsuits who have discovery rights. </p> <p>Substantive amendments to the current FOIA exemptions include: </p> <p><strong>Exemption 1</strong>--The standard for judicial review with respect to classified records is proposed to be the "arbitrary or capricious" standard. </p> <p><strong>Exemption 2</strong>--The proposal extends confidentiality to manuals and instructions to investigators, inspectors, auditors and negotiators, and also to examination material used in employment, certification or licensing. </p> <p><strong>Exemption 4</strong>--The Administration's bill would enlarge the protection accorded business records by providing that such records are exempt if their release "may impair either the legitimate competitive, financial, or business interests of any person or the government's ability to obtain such information in the future." In addition, the bill provides procedures by which submitters of such information may have input into agency disclosure determinations. Finally, courts deciding "reverse FOIA" cases would review agency disclosure decisions according to a <em>de novo</em> standard. </p> <p><strong>Exemption 6</strong>--The Administration's bill extends personal privacy protection to "records or information concerning individuals"; changes the balancing standard from a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" to an "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"; and exempts compilations of names and addresses that could be used for solicitation purposes. </p> <p><strong>Exemption 7</strong>--The Administration's bill makes the following changes: broadening of the exemption's threshold language; addition of language to ensure that investigatory information related to ongoing investigations is fully protected; protection of information that would "tend to" disclose the identity of a confidential source; and modification of existing language to further protect confidential sources. </p> <p>The bill would also provide an exemption for material related to investigations of terrorism, organized crime or foreign counterintelligence, where designated by the Attorney General. </p> <p>Two additional exemptions would allow agencies to protect records generated in settlement of a legal action and technical data which may not be exported outside of the United States without agency approval. </p> <p>The bill also provides for two new standards for assessing fees. The first one authorizes fees for the full costs attributable to the processing of requested records. The second permits assessments which reflect the true value of valuable technological or reference information. </p> <p>On the problem of time limits, the administration proposal would retain the 10-day time limits for material which can be processed without complication in eight working hours or less. Agencies could take up to a year to respond to more complex or voluminous requests and requests where the interests of a submitter are involved, but would have to provide a specific time estimate and explanation within 10 working days of receipt. </p> <p>The Administration bill also addresses the problem of the use of FOIA for discovery purposes by prohibiting a party to a judicial or administrative proceeding from filing a FOIA request for records relating to he subject matter of the proceeding. </p> <p>Consideration of the Administration's package and of S. 1730 continued in the Senate Subcommittee on he Constitution during November.</p> <p>Rep. Glenn English, chairman of he House Subcommittee on Government Information and Individual Rights, also has held hearings on the Freedom of Information Act and has indicated that he will consider further hearings and markup of a bill after the Senate takes action. </p> <p> <br /></p><p> Go to: <a href="/oip/foi-upd.htm">FOIA Update Home Page</a> </p>
#> 4 <strong>FOIA Update <br />Vol. III, No. 1 <br />1981</strong> <h2>FOIA Training Opportunities</h2> <strong>U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE</strong> <p>PARALEGAL TRAINING </p> <p><em>Alex Bartning (8 724-7492) </em><br /> (Open to those outside of DOJ on a space-available basis) </p> <p> <br /></p><p> </p><p>\u0095 INFORMATION PROCESSES <br /> Feb. 8-9 &nbsp Washington, D.C. &nbsp $90 </p> <strong>OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT</strong> <p>IN THE REGIONS: </p> <p> <br /></p><p> </p><p> <strong>New England Regional Training Center </strong> <br /><em>Dan Buckley (8 223-5786) </em> </p> <p>\u0095 IMPLEMENTATION OF PRIVACY ACT AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT &nbsp $165 <br /> Jan. 27-28 &nbsp Boston, MA <br /> June 29-30 &nbsp Boston, MA </p> <p> <br /></p><p> </p><p> <strong>Great Lakes Regional Training Center</strong> <br /><em>Charles Stout (8 353-2927) </em> </p> <p>\u0095 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY ACTS &nbsp $125 <br /> March 2-3 &nbsp Chicago, IL </p> <p> <br /></p><p> </p><p> <strong>Southeast Regional Training Center</strong> <br /><em>William Fitzpatrick (8 242-5193) </em> </p> <p>\u0095 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY ACTS &nbsp $125 <br /> June 2-3 &nbsp Atlanta, GA </p> <p> <br /></p><p> </p><p> <strong>Southwest Regional Training Center</strong> <br /><em>Yvonne Lindhom (8 729-9841) </em> </p> <p>\u0095 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PERSONAL PRIVACY &nbsp $125 <br /> Jan. 20-22 &nbsp New Orleans, LA <br /> April 20-22 &nbsp Dallas, TX </p> <p> <br /></p><p> </p><p> <strong>Northwest Regional Training Center</strong> <br /><em>John Malloy (8 399-7904) </em> </p> <p>\u0095 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND PRIVACY ACT WORKSHOP &nbsp $125 <br /> Feb. 11-12 &nbsp Seattle, WA </p> <p> <br /></p><p> </p><p><strong>IN WASHINGTON, D.C.</strong> <br /><em>Supervisory and Communications Training Center (8 242-3211) </em></p> <p>\u0095 SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION/ PRIVACY ACT <br /> Feb. 16-17 &nbsp Thomas Circle Training Center, 1121 Vermont Ave., N.W. </p> <strong>USDA GRADUATE SCHOOL</strong> <p><em> (8 474-3247)</em> </p> <p>\u0095 IMPLEMENTATION OF FOIA AND PRIVACY ACT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL &nbsp $165 <br /> March 4-5 &nbsp Capital Gallery, 600 Maryland Ave., S.W. </p> <strong>Records Courses</strong> <p><strong>NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE </strong><br /> RECORDS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT <br /><em>(For more information call 724-1069)</em> </p> <p> <br /></p><p> </p><p>\u0095 RECORDS DISPOSITION &nbsp $80 <br /> Jan. 27-28 <br /> June 16-17 <br /> Interocean Building, 521 9th St., N.W.</p> <p> <br /></p><p> </p><p>\u0095 FILES IMPROVEMENTS <br /> Jan. 25-26 <br /> June 14-15 <br /> Interocean Building, 521 9th St., N.W. </p> <p> <br /></p><p> </p><p>\u0095 INTRODUCTION TO THE MAINTENANCE AND DISPOSITION OF FEDERAL RECORDS <br /> April 5-9 <br /> Interocean Building, 521 9th St., N.W. </p> <p> <br /></p><p> </p><p>\u0095 INTRODUCTION TO THE CREATION AND USE OF FEDERAL RECORDS <br /> March. 15-19 <br /> July 26-30 <br /> GSA Training Center, Crystal City, VA </p> <p> <br /></p><p> </p><p>\u0095 MICROGRAPHICS FUNDAMENTALS <br /> Feb. 1-3 <br /> April 14-16 <br /> June 16-18 <br /> Sept. 7-9 <br /> GSA Training Center, Crystal City, VA </p> <p> <br /></p><p> Go to: <a href="/oip/foi-upd.htm">FOIA Update Home Page</a> </p>
#> 5 <strong>FOIA Update <br />Vol. III, No. 1 <br />1981</strong> <h2>Recordkeeping Procedures Examined</h2> <p>With few exceptions, records in the physical possession of a federal agency are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. </p> <p>Agencies do not, however, have to retain indefinitely all records which are created by or submitted to them. Under the Federal Records Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3102 and § 3103, agencies are required to establish records management programs which identify records that should be preserved and to plan for the storage and disposal of records having only temporary significance. </p> <p>It is estimated that only about five percent of government records, because of their administrative, legal, research or other value, become part of the permanent national collection. For a variety of reasons, many more records are retained for longer periods of time than are required. </p> <p>In addition, some materials can be returned to submitters in the private sector, because of the circumstances under which they were obtained, once there is no longer a need for them. Agencies should be aware that once a Freedom of Information Act request has been received, the requested records assume a special status and ordinarily must be retained until the requester's access rights are determined. </p> <p>Federal records, generally speaking, fall into two categories: administrative materials which are standard throughout the entire government and for which there is a schedule for retention and disposition furnished by the National Archives and Records Service (NARS), and other materials which are related to the kinds of programs conducted by the individual agencies. Individual schedules for retention and final disposition of records are developed by agency personnel in consultation with the Archivist of the United States. </p> <strong>The Justice Effort </strong> <p>At the Justice Department, there is a full scale effort underway to help managers and clerical workers focus on files maintenance and records disposition practices. Under the guidance of Bernie Berglind of the Justice Management Division's Records and Publications Staff, a course in files maintenance and records disposition will be given five times in 1982, beginning with a class Jan. 5-6. </p> <p>In the course, Berglind points out that almost every move made in government generates paperwork. Some of this material--for example, reading files, informational copies and acknowledgments--need not be kept. Other routine material need not be kept for as long as some offices may keep it. In fact, a significant portion is covered by the routine retention and disposal schedule. </p> <strong>At the FAA </strong> <p>Over the years, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has reviewed a great deal of material in the complex process of certifying the airworthiness of airplanes and the safety of parts and modifications. </p> <p>At first, the FAA took the position that this material -- called Type Design Data -- was the sort of "agency records" required to be retained. Although this information was generally thought to be in large part protected under Exemption 4 of the FOIA, it was often sought by tort litigants involved in suits against both large and small manufacturers. "A classic use of the FOIA in place of discovery," notes John Walsh, chief of the General Law Branch, FAA. </p> <p>Then came two Supreme Court decisions clarifying what constitutes an "agency record" under the FOIA. "Two recent Supreme Court decisions establish that the Government has no obligation, and perhaps no right, to consider manufacturers' technical data not in its possession to be agency records covered by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552.<em> Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press</em>, 445 U.S. 136 (1980); <em>Forsham v. Harris</em>, 445 U.S. 169 (1980)," Walsh noted in a memo. </p> <p>He then concluded that technical data which "never physically reaches FAA premises because it is examined by designees of the Administrator is not 'obtained' by the FAA and, therefore, is not susceptible to disclosure under the FOIA." </p> <p>Further, "technical data which has been returned by the FAA to the manufacturer before a FOIA request for it is received, because the FAA has no current need for it, is not in the possession or control of the FAA and, therefore, is not susceptible to disclosure under the FOIA . . ."</p> <p>The FAA's new policy includes an agreement with the manufacturers that secures the records should a court disagree with agency policy or should there be some question as to the business future of a manufacturer. </p> <strong>The Antitrust Division </strong> <p>The Justice Department's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission follow similar procedures related to return of materials. </p> <p>At the Antitrust Division, there is a long-standing practice of returning documents submitted in response to a grand jury subpoena or a civil investigative demand, once the investigation is completed. Rules for limiting the retention of these documents are spelled out in a Division Directive dated Dec. 18, 1980. </p> <p>For case law authorizing the practice of returning subpoenaed documents see <em>Application of Bendix Aviation Corp.</em>, 58 F. Supp. 953 (S.D.N.Y. 1945), and <em>In re Petroleum Industry Investigation</em>, 152 F. Supp. 646 (E.D. Va. 1957). </p> <p>At the FTC, Jack Schwartz, deputy assistant general counsel, said that the 96th Congress, apparently noting that DOJ's practices seemed to be working, "in essence required the FTC to adopt a formal practice" of returning original documents to submitters. The FTC would keep copies, only as needed, Schwartz says. The FTC regulation, adopted in accord with P.L. 96-252, states that "[A]ny person who has submitted documentary material to the Commission may file a written request for the return of original documents which have not been received into evidence (1) after the close of the proceeding in connection with which the documents were submitted, or (2) when no proceeding in which the material may be used has been commenced within a reasonable time . . ."</p> <p>In sum, the timely application of destruction schedules and other record disposition techniques can result in superior records management and less costly FOIA searches. A list of General Services Administration courses in records and files management appears on page 12 of <em>FOIA Update</em>. </p> <p> <br /></p><p> Go to: <a href="/oip/foi-upd.htm">FOIA Update Home Page</a> </p>
#> 6 <strong>FOIA Update <br />Vol. III, No. 1 <br />1981</strong> <h2>Significant New Decisions</h2> <p> <br /></p><p> </p><p> <strong><em>Worthington Compressors, Inc., et al. v. Costle</em>, Nos. 80-1010, 80-1011, 80-1012, 80-1013 (D.C. Cir., Aug. 20, 1981).</strong> </p> <p>The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in this case expanded the availability of FOIA Exemption 4 by identifying a new factor to be considered when determining if submitted business material is confidential. </p> <p>Four manufacturers of portable air compressors who submitted reports on their products to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were the appellants in this case. They requested confidential treatment for their information, but the agency rejected their objections to disclosure on the grounds that the information could be duplicated by anyone with access to the air compressors through "reverse engineering." The manufacturers then sought to enjoin release in the district court. They contended that the information constituted confidential commercial information and should be withheld under Exemption 4. Further, they alleged that the reverse engineering which could be undertaken to determine the design and engineering specifications of their compressors would be so expensive as to be commercially impracticable. The district court below sustained the agency and ordered disclosure. </p> <p>The court of appeals, however, reversed. In determining whether information is confidential in Exemption 4 cases, the circuit court said it is proper to determine "whether release of the requested information, given its commercial value to competitors and the cost of acquiring it through other means, will cause substantial competitive harm to the business that submitted it." Accordingly, the court concluded, consideration should be given to how costly it would be for a possible competitor to obtain the information through means other than the FOIA and whether FOIA disclosure would constitute a windfall to the requester. </p> <p> <br /></p><p> </p><p> <strong><em>Bast v. U.S. Department of Justice</em>, Nos. 79-2039, 80-1050 (D.C. Cir., Sept. 10, 1981). </strong> </p> <p>This case grew out of a hearing in a previous case. Richard Bast, a private investigator, alleged that U.S. District Judge John Pratt improperly induced a court reporter to expunge a portion of a hearing transcript in the earlier case. Bast then requested access to all FBI documents compiled during the investigation into the allegation. After the FBI released approximately 600 pages of such documents, Bast brought suit challenging all withholdings. With a few exceptions, the district court agreed that the remaining documents were exempt from disclosure. </p> <p>On appeal, 12 documents remained at issue. The agency asserted that all of the withheld material fell within Exemption 7(C) -- the investigatory records exemption relating to personal privacy. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals said that while Exemption 7(C) affords broad privacy rights to "suspects, witnesses and investigators," there still must be a case-by-case balancing of privacy rights against the public interest in disclosure. </p> <p>After reviewing the documents <em>in camera</em> the court decided that, with one exception, the privacy interest outweighed the public interest. The unique exception is a three sentence passage containing comments by the judge which the circuit court found could be interpreted as revealing a bias. "The public importance of judicial impartiality outweighs the privacy interest in this case," the court ruled in ordering disclosure of that passage. A petition for rehearing has been filed by the Department of Justice. </p> <p> <br /></p><p> </p><p><strong><em>Brown v. Federal Bureau of Investigation</em>, 658 F.2d 71 (2d Cir. 1981).</strong> </p> <p>In this case, a convicted kidnapper sought access to detailed information from FBI files regarding his kidnaping victim. He argued that the victim had waived her privacy rights by testifying at his trial and that, in any event, he had an overriding need for the information in order to attack his conviction. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the requested information was properly withheld under Exemption 6 and rejected the plaintiffs arguments. After finding the requested information to be sufficiently personal to satisfy the "similar files" threshold of Exemption 6, the court of appeals held that the victim's testimony at the trial did not constitute a waiver of "her right to keep private other related matters." Most significantly, the court of appeals found the plaintiff's stated interest in using such information to obtain a new trial to be "too uncertain, indirect, and remote" to overcome the victim's privacy interests in nondisclosure. (A somewhat contrary outcome on this latter point was reached by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in<em> Ferri v. Bell</em>, published at 645 F.2d 1213, earlier this year, but that decision was vacated on Oct. 23 by the Third Circuit and scheduled for reargument.) </p> <p> <br /></p><p> </p><p> <em></em> <strong><em>Radovich v. United States Attorney, District of Maryland</em>, 658 F.2d 957 (4th Cir. 1981). </strong> </p> <p>"Confidential" as used in the first clause of Exemption 7(D) does not mean "secret;" rather, it means "given in confidence" or "in trust," the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit made clear in this case. </p> <p>The court below had found that the information sought by the plaintiff in this case was not protected because it was publicly known that the source had spoken with government prosecutors. Accordingly, said the district court, the identity of the source -- an attorney for an individual involved in the criminal investigation -- was "neither confidential nor at issue." In overruling the district court, the circuit court of appeals concluded that the first clause of Exemption 7(D) serves to protect the attorney's conversations so long as the information was given under an express assurance of confidentiality or in circumstances where such an assurance could reasonably be assumed. Public knowledge of the source's identity is irrelevant, the appellate court found. </p> <p>The Fourth Circuit also examined the second clause of Exemption 7(D), which the district court has found likewise inapplicable, and construed it broadly as well. The circuit court found that Congress intended to protect all of the information furnished by a confidential source "in the course of a criminal investigation, irrespective of whether the information might have been available from some other source." </p> <p> <br /></p><p> Go to: <a href="/oip/foi-upd.htm">FOIA Update Home Page</a> </p>
#> changed created date teaser
#> 1 2014-08-14 2014-08-14 1981-01-01 NULL
#> 2 2014-08-14 2014-08-14 1981-01-01 NULL
#> 3 2014-08-14 2014-08-14 1981-01-01 NULL
#> 4 2014-08-14 2014-08-14 1981-01-01 NULL
#> 5 2014-08-14 2014-08-14 1981-01-01 NULL
#> 6 2014-08-14 2014-08-14 1981-01-01 NULL
#> title
#> 1 FOIA Update: Text of Freedom of Information Act, Showing Changes Proposed in S. 1751/H.R. 4805
#> 2 FOIA Update: OILP Publishes 1981 Case List
#> 3 FOIA Update: FOIA Reform Proposed
#> 4 FOIA Update: FOIA Training Opportunities
#> 5 FOIA Update: Recordkeeping Procedures Examined
#> 6 FOIA Update: Significant New Decisions
#> url
#> 1 https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-update-text-freedom-information-act-showing-changes-proposed-s-1751hr-4805
#> 2 https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-update-oilp-publishes-1981-case-list
#> 3 https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-update-foia-reform-proposed
#> 4 https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-update-foia-training-opportunities-62
#> 5 https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-update-recordkeeping-procedures-examined
#> 6 https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-update-significant-new-decisions-55
#> uuid vuuid
#> 1 4c7090d2-3e8f-4cc7-8160-2e15a2814090 b5d3e433-c9d2-4e4f-acb2-c2e722852530
#> 2 860458cd-687f-4f47-b844-1cc27d90b430 82035722-4d22-44dc-86b9-3f8c981d2f40
#> 3 bb7edcc0-9bec-4215-a7f7-0120caf14238 db71aa8b-924b-461a-a544-ba5bc1844fb3
#> 4 e2d43e0d-99db-49fb-8ac9-87fa0e526e8d 8ed9c40a-ed7d-4463-affb-7c03f100037a
#> 5 e7024fa1-22a1-49f0-80ae-5e563fcd94b3 cd549f68-a8b5-4d3a-9846-928bd48300db
#> 6 cee7fff5-c6e2-405e-b047-1b318edfe166 2a4fb4f5-fadd-4ddb-8678-2b2fddb43126
#> name
#> 1 Office of Information Policy
#> 2 Office of Information Policy
#> 3 Office of Information Policy
#> 4 Office of Information Policy
#> 5 Office of Information Policy
#> 6 Office of Information Policy