the name of the person giving the information appear?

10. The number of Inspectors' Reports (Form CA 15) in which there is a reference to information furnished by an employee or worker in a plant.

11. In how many of the Inspectors' Reports enumerated in response to Interrogatory No. 10 does the name of the person furnishing information appear?

12. In how many Inspectors' Reports (Form CA 15) is there any evaluation of the credibility, effectiveness, or other characteristics as a witness, of any person giving information?

13. The number of Inspectors' Reports (Form CA 15) in which there is a reference or an indication that a follow-up inspection should be made. 14. For each instance (or Inspectors' Report) enumerated in response to Interrogatory No. 13, was a follow-up inspection made?

15. For each instance enumerated in response to Interrogatory No. 14, how many follow-up inspections were made?

16. For each instance (or Inspectors' Report) enumerated in response to Interrogatory No. 13 (in which it was indicated that a follow-up inspection should be made), list all steps taken for the purpose of correcting or having the employer correct the conditions found and noted for which the follow-up inspection was to be made.

17. For each Notice of Violation (Form CA 16), state what steps, if any, were taken to secure correction of the violation; if none, state "none".

18. List by name and code number the specific violations stated in the Notices of Violation, and give for each the total number of each type of violation.

19. For each specific violation listed in response to Interrogatory No. 17, state the number for which the time required to obtain correction of the violation was less than one month; months; two-three months; three-four

one-two

months; six-nine year-18

four-five months; five-six months; months; nine months-one year; one months; 18 months-two years; more than two years; never corrected.

20. For how many Notices of Violation was correction achieved without another inspection of the plant?

21. For how many Notices of Violation was correction achieved after one inspection; after two inspections; after three inspections; after four inspections; after five inspections; after more than five inspections; never corrected?

22. How many Notices of Violation issued or transmitted during the calendar year resulted in formal enforcement proceedings instituted by a complaint?

23. What was the final disposition of each of the enforcement proceedings enumerated in response to Interrogatory No. 22?

24. In how many of the enforcement proceedings in which a hearing was held was the Inspectors' Report (Form CA 15) made part of the record?

25. The number of Inspectors' Reports (Form CA 15) which include only injury frequency rates computed by the employer.

26. The number of Inspectors' Reports (Form CA 15) which include only injury frequency rates computed by the inspector.

27. The number of Inspectors' Reports (Form CA 15) which include injury frequency rates computed by the inspector and injury frequency rates computed by the employer. . .

28. The number of Inspectors' Reports which include no information on injury frequency rates.

29. The number of instances enumerated in response to Interrogatory No. 25 in which the Inspectors' Report indicates that the information about injury frequency rates was submitted under a pledge of confidence.

30. The number of instances enumerated in response to Interrogatory No. 25 in which there is any indication in the file that the information about injury frequency rates was submitted under a pledge of confidence; and state the nature of the document in which the indication appears and the language of the indication.

31. The number of times Bureau of Labor Standards inspectors were denied access to a plant that they desired to inspect for compliance with the Walsh-Healey Act and its regulations.

32. For each instance enumerated in response to Interrogatory No. 31, state the date, the location, the name of the plant and the company, the reason given for denial of access, whether access was obtained later, the time elapsed between ini

tial denial and the obtaining of access and the steps taken to gain access.

33. Which are the five most common examples of what the Bureau considers "opinions expressed" in Inspectors' Reports (Form CA 15), and the frequency of the appearance of each example?

34. Which are the five most common examples of what the Bureau considers "policy recommendations formulated" in Inspectors' Reports (Form CA 15), and the frequency of the appearance of each example?

MOTION FOR EXPEDITION

(Wecksler v. Shultz, C.A. No. 3549-69)

Plaintiffs move the Court to expedite all procedures in this matter and for reason therefor show as follows:

1. This action was filed on December 15, 1969. Since that time, defendants have moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgement. That motion was denied. There are currently pending proceedings in discovery that require a prompt determination by this Court.

2. The Freedom of Information Act provides that actions brought thereunder "take precedence on the docket over all other causes and shall be assigned for hearing and trial at the earliest practicable date and expedited in every way." On this basis, plaintiffs request that the Court establish an expedited schedule in order to have this matter promptly heard and resolved.

ORDER FOR IN CAMERA EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTS

(Wecksler v. Schultz, C.A. No. 3549-69)

This cause came on to be heard on pending motions on October 28, 1970. On consideration of the memoranda filed previously and the arguments of counsel, it is hereby ordered:

1. Counsel for defendants will submit to the Court, within 30 days from the date of hearing, or no later than November 27, 1970, in a sealed envelope, for inspection by the Court in camera, all Inspectors' Reports (Form CA 15) and all Notices of Violation (Form CA 16) for the year 1969, on file in the mid-Atlantic Regional Office of the Bureau of Labor Standards Office of Occupational Safety, filed alphabetically by company name beginning with the letters "A”, “M”, “P”, and "W".

2. Consideration of plaintiffs' Motion for Production of Documents is deferred.

/s/ United States District Judge

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

(Wecksler v. Shultz, C.A. No. 3549-69, USDCDC)

This cause, a complaint for disclosure of documents under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, was heard on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgement, defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgement having previously been denied. The Court has considered the affidavits filed by the parties, the extensive memoranda of law, and oral argument. The Court also, following the procedure suggested in BristolMyers Co. v. FTC, 424 F2d 935 (D.C. Cir. 1970), examined in camera a sample of more than 200 of the thousands of documents whose disclosure was sought. The size and composition of the sample was selected by agreement of the parties. Findings of Fact

1. In July, 1969, plaintiffs requested of defendants the right to inspect and copy certain of defendant's records, designated as forms "CA 15," Inspectors' Reports, and "CA 16," Notices of Violation, of the defendant Bureau of Labor Standards.

2. Defendant Guenther as Director of the Bureau of Labor Standards refused access to files described as current and agreed to permit access to files described as not current only upon the condition that plaintiffs agree not to disclose names of persons or firms appearing in the records.

3. Plaintiffs appealed the denial of access and the conditional grant of access to the defendant Silverman, Solicitor of the defendant Department of Labor, in August, 1969.

4. In January, 1970, after this action was filed and after an order of mandamus was issued by this Court, defendants replied to, and denied, plaintiffs' appeal.

5. The records sought are Inspectors' Reports, "C.A. 15's," and Notices of Violation, "C.A. 16's," prepared by inspectors employed by defendants in connection with their inspection of plants subject to the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act.

6. The C.A. 15's record health and safety conditions in the plants inspected, including, among

other things, conditions that may violate the standards promulgated under the Walsh-Healey Act.

7. The C.A. 16's record violations of the standards promulgated under the Walsh-Healey Act and are transmitted to the employer whose plant is found to be in violation.

8. In the period 1966-1970 (end of first quarter), as reported by defendants, 13,284 Inspectors' Reports and 9,359 Notices of Violation were filed.

9. In the period 1966-1969, defendants carried out 115 formal proceedings against employers and declared 13 employers ineligible to receive govern

ment contracts.

Conclusions of Law

1. Plaintiffs have complied with the procedural requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552, and defendants' applicable regulations, 29 C.F.R. 70.1 et seq.

2. The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. $522(a)(3) places on defendants the burden of sustaining their refusal to permit access to the

C.A. 15's and C.A. 16's.

3. Defendants have failed to meet the burden of showing that the records sought are exempt under any of the exemptions in 5 U.S.C. §552(b).

4. Nothing in the records sought is a trade secret or commercial or financial information within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. §522(b)(4), or is an internal memorandum within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(5), or is an investigatory file compiled for law enforcement purposes within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. §552(b) (7).

5. As provided in 5 U.S.C. §552(c), there exists no lawful basis for withholding access to records except the exemptions stated in 5 U.S.C. §552(b).

6. Under the Act, and also under the decisions of the Court of Appeals in Bristol-Myers Co. v. FTC, 424 F2d 935 (D.C. Cir. 1970) and Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. v. Renegotiation Board, 425 F2d 578 (D.C. Cir. 1970), the documents sought have been improperly withheld from plaintiffs. ORDER

On the basis of the foregoing, it is this 1st day of February, 1971,

ORDERED, that plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment be and it hereby is granted in that defendants are to make available to plaintiffs, or

to any person the plaintiffs may designate, the Inspectors' Reports (C.A. 15's) and Notices of Violation (C.A. 16's) whose disclosure plaintiffs seek, provided that

1. The effective date of this order is stayed for thirty (30) days from this date within which time the defendants may file notice of appeal and if such notice is filed then this order is stayed until the conclusion of proceedings in the Court of Appeals; and

2. Disclosure of the Inspectors' Report compiled by or for defendants on the explosion of Shell Oil and Chemical Co., Deer Park, Texas, sought specifically by intervenors Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, is to be withheld pending further order of this Court; and

3. Defendants may move to modify this order as to any particular document covered by this order on grounds such as that it contains witness statements, trade secrets, or is being used in the course of formal adjudicatory proceedings.

/s/ United States District Judge

Leading law journal articles on the Federal Freedom of Information Act.

For a general overall theoretical view, we suggest Joan M. Katz, The Games Bureaucrats Play: Hide and Seek Under the Freedom of Information Act, 48 Texas Law Rev. 1261 (Nov., 1970). For a general discussion of practical aspects, we suggest Ralph Nader, Freedom from Information: The Act and Agencies, 5 Harvard Civil Rights Law Rev. 1 (Jan., 1970).

1. Administrative Law-Freedom of Information Act. File classified "top secret" is within national security exemption from the act and is not obtainable unless the classification is arbitrary and unreasonable. 83 Harv. Law Rev. 928 (Feb., 1970).

2. Administrative Law-Freedom of Information Act. The use of equitable discretion to modify the act. 44 Tulane Law Rev. 800 (June, 1970).

3. Caron, Jr., A. J., Federal Procurement and the Freedom of Information Act. 28 Fed. Bar J. 271 (summer, 1968).

4. Davis, K. C., Information Act: A Preliminary Analysis. 34 U. Chicago Law Rev. 761 (summer, 1967).

5. Inspection of Public Records. 11 Kansas Law Rev. 157 (Oct., 1962).

6. Johnstone, J. M., Freedom of Information Act and the FDA. 25 Food, Drug, Cosmetic Law J. 296 (June, 1970).

7. Judicial Discretion and the Freedom of Information Act, Disclosure Denied: Consumers Union v. Veterans Administration. (301 F Supp. 796), 45 Ind. Law J. 421 (spring, 1970).

8. Katz, Joan M., The Games Bureaucrats Play: Hide and Seek Under the Freedom of Information Act. 48 Texas Law Rev. 1261 (Nov., 1970).

9. Lane, M. T., Acquisition of State Documents. 63 Law Library J. 92 (Feb., 1970).

10. Nader, R., Freedom from Information: The Act and Agencies. 5 Harvard Civil Rights Law Rev. 1 (Jan., 1970).