Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitattorneygrand jury
litigationattorneystatuteleasecriminal lawgrand jury

Related Cases

Flatt v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.4th 275, 885 P.2d 950, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537, 63 USLW 2417
View Case »
Fickett v. Superior Court of Pima County, 27 Ariz.App. 793, 558 P.2d 988
View Case »
Haeger v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 813 F.3d 1233, 93 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1519, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1659
View Case »
Scheehle v. Justices of Supreme Court of Ariz., 508 F.3d 887, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 13,072, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 17,038
View Case »
Matter of Respondent G, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.2d, 1992 WL 204655, 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 175
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Department of Justice, 917 F.2d 571, 286 U.S.App.D.C. 349

Facts

On May 31, 1988, the Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division of the Justice Department sent a letter to the House Ethics Committee detailing the results of a grand jury investigation into Congressman Fernand J. St Germain's potential criminal wrongdoing. The letter indicated that while the Department had found substantial evidence of misconduct, it declined to prosecute due to uncertainty in meeting the standard of proof. Dow Jones requested access to this letter under FOIA, but the Department withheld certain portions, leading to a lawsuit.

On May 31, 1988, John C. Keeney, the Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division of the Justice Department, sent a letter to Representative Julian C. Dixon, Chairman of the House Ethics Committee. The letter revealed that the Justice Department had been conducting a grand jury investigation into whether Representative St Germain's receipt of free meals and entertainment was in violation of any criminal laws.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the letter constituted intra or interagency communication exempt from disclosure under FOIA and whether the information was obtained from confidential sources, thus justifying its exemption.

The main legal issues were whether the letter constituted intra or interagency communication exempt from disclosure under FOIA and whether the information was obtained from confidential sources, thus justifying its exemption.

Rule

Under FOIA, documents are generally available to the public unless they fall under one of the Act's exemptions. Exemption 5 protects inter-agency or intra-agency documents that reflect an agency's deliberative process, while Exemption 7(D) protects information obtained from confidential sources during a criminal investigation.

Exemption 5 of the statute permits an agency to refuse to disclose to the public '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.' 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5).

Analysis

The court analyzed the applicability of FOIA exemptions to the letter in question. It determined that the letter did not qualify as intra-agency communication under Exemption 5, as it was sent to Congress. However, the court found that the information was obtained from confidential sources during the investigation, which fell under Exemption 7(D), thus justifying the withholding of the redacted portions of the letter.

The court analyzed the applicability of FOIA exemptions to the letter in question. It determined that the letter did not qualify as intra-agency communication under Exemption 5, as it was sent to Congress. However, the court found that the information was obtained from confidential sources during the investigation, which fell under Exemption 7(D), thus justifying the withholding of the redacted portions of the letter.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's decision in part, holding that the letter was exempt from disclosure under Exemption 7(D) due to the confidential nature of the sources, while reversing the part of the decision that applied Exemption 5.

The court affirmed the district court's decision in part, holding that the letter was exempt from disclosure under Exemption 7(D) due to the confidential nature of the sources, while reversing the part of the decision that applied Exemption 5.

Who won?

The Department of Justice prevailed in the case, as the court upheld its decision to withhold the letter's redacted portions based on the confidentiality of the sources involved in the investigation.

The Department, according to the court, did not establish that the other witnesses were 'confidential sources,' and therefore the redacted parts of the letter discussing information provided by these nonconfidential sources would have had to have been released if the Department had relied only on Exemption 7(D).

You must be