government's evidence that a prima facie case had been established to warrant the plea and its acceptance thereof by the Court. F.R.Crim.P. Rule 11. The Court orders the disclosure of these items within ten days from the date of this Order. As to the remaining documents which either go to support the additional charges or are otherwise encompassed in plaintiffs' request, a detailed justification accompanying the contested papers is ordered to be filed with this Court for its consideration within 45 days of this Order. Vaughn v. Rosen, supra. It is so ordered. Dated: October 8, 1975. JUNE L. GREEN, U.S. District Judge. [Exhibit 82a] BALDWIN V. FINNEY (Civ. No. 75-1221 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 1975)) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL ACTION NO. 75-1221 ROY BALDWIN, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS VS. JERVIS FINNEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM ORDER Plaintiffs in this action are seeking the files relating to the investigation of former Vice President Spiro T. Agnew which led to his plea of nolo contendere to one count of Federal income tax invasion on October 10, 1973. By order of this Court on October 8, 1975, a timetable was ordered. Documents which by necessity had to be made available or the contents divulged to the parties and the Court in order to assure that a factual basis existed for the plea of nolo contendere were to be submitted within ten days. A detailed justification for withholding the remaining documents was to be filed within forty-five days. In response to the first part of the October 8th Order, the defendants filed a report to the Court which contained the forty page narrative which had been presented to the United States District Court in Maryland to comply with F.R.Crim.P. Rule 11. Plaintiffs responded with a motion for sanctions since the document was something that had been a matter of public record for two years. As to the withholding of the remaining documents, the defendants filed a renewed motion for summary judgment with a fourth affidavit from Jervis Finney. Plaintiffs then filed a second motion for sanctions along with their opposition to defendants' motion. At the hearing held on December 15, 1975, the Court specifically found that the first four affidavits submitted by Mr. Finney were too conclusory to be of use. All four, which are essentially identical in substance, assert that the materials are part of a continuing and ongoing investigation. The Court further found that Mr. Finney had not exercised good faith in the course of the instant action, since there would have to be a spectrum of possible classifications as concerns materials in the Agnew investigation because Mr. Agnew's case closed with his sentencing. There may well be documents which were used in the Agnew prosecution which will also relate to the present and future investigations. These certainly would be exempt. 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b) (7) (A). However, as suggested in the defendants' October 20, 1975 report to the Court, there are documents which relate only to Mr. Agnew or to witnesses who were given immunity from prosecution. The exemption claimed by the defendants would appear inapplicable to these items. In light of the above, the Court ordered the defendants to produce a meaningful response by December 22nd and indicated the motions for sanctions would be heard on that date. In response to the Court's Order, the defendants submitted a fifth Finney affidavit which sought to provide detailed justification for withholding the statements made by witnesses on which this Court focused during the December 19th hearing. As this Court has previously indicated, the 1974 amendments to the Freedom of Information evidence a desire on the part of Congress to turn the tide of the law as concerns closed investigatory files. Prior to this time courts have afforded broad protection to investigatory files, irrespective of their status. Weisburg v. Department of Justice, 489 F.2d 1195 (1973) (en banc) cert. denied, 416 U.S. 993; Aspin v. Department of Defense, 491 F.2d 24 (1973) and their progeny. Therefore, the plaintiffs who are acting as concerned citizens interested in the investigation of the former Vice President of the United States are entitled to any documents which do not fall within the exemptions of the Act concerning closed files. 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b) (7) (B) to (F). Although Mr. Finney's affidavit attempted to supply the Court with specific justification, it is clear that to balance on the one hand unwarranted public disclosure of records which may properly be exempt with the necessity that what is disclosable will be released, the Court must examine a portion of the documents in camera. Ash Grove Cement Co. v. FTC, 511 F.2d 815 (D.C. Cir. 1975). In view of the foregoing, the Court will not order indexing at this time pending the expected good faith response of the defendants to this Order, and will withhold ruling on the outstanding motions until the review of documents has been completed. In accordance with the above, it is by the Court this 23rd day of December 1975, Ordered that defendants submit for in camera inspection all material referred to in the fifth affidavit of Jervis Finney filed December 19, 1975, by January 9, 1975; and it is further Ordered that a meaningful and representative sample of materials as delineated in the first part of the Order of October 8th be submitted to the Court by January 23, 1976; and it is further Ordered that a meaningful and representative sample of the materials described in the second part of the October 8th Order be submitted to the Court by January 30, 1976. Claimed justifications for withholding the documents submitted with the materials need not be served on plaintiffs at this time. JUNE L. GREEN, U.S. District Judge. [Exhibit 82b] BALDWIN V. FINNEY (Civ. No. 75–1221 (D.D.C. Jan. 13, 1976)) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL ACTION NO. 75-1221 ROY BALDWIN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS VS. JERVIS FINNY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM ORDER On December 23, 1975, the Court ordered the defendants to submit for in camera inspection the four witness statements referred to in the fifth affidavit of Jervis Finney by January 9, 1975. The Court has reviewed the material and determined that because of the continuing investigation and prosecutions, two of the witness statements may be withheld in toto at this time. 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b) (7) (A). The remaining two statements shall be released with the names of third parties deleted. There is no ongoing investigation or prosecution as to the matters contained therein. Deletions were made where disclosure of information might prejudice the rights of others to a fair trial, where an invasion of privacy might occur or where the ongoing investigations might be compromised. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (7) (A), (B) and (C). See Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied 415 U.S. 977 (1974). It is, therefore, by the Court this 13th day of January 1976, ORDERED that two witness statements, the identity of which has been indicated to the defendants, should be and the same hereby are released as amended by the Court; and it is further ORDERED that compliance with this Order be stayed for five days to permit notice of an appeal, if desired. JUNE L. GREEN, U.S. District Judge. [Exhibit 82c] BALDWIN V. FINNEY (Civ. No. 75-1221 (D.D.C. Jan. 21, 1976)) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL ACTION NO. 75-1221 ROY BALDWIN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS VS. JERVIS FINNEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS ORDER Upon consideration of plaintiffs' Motion for Modification of Order and the record herein, it is by the Court this 20th day of January 1976, ORDERED that the Order of the Court filed December 23, 1975 in the abovecaptioned matter should be and the same hereby is amended to delete the following sentences: ORDERED that a meaningful and representative sample of materials as delineated in the first part of the Order of October 8th be submitted to the Court by January 23, 1976; and it is further ORDERED that a meaningful and representative sample of the materials described in the second part of the October 8th Order be submitted to the Court by January 30, 1976. and in its place, substitute the following: ORDERED that all documents referred to in the first part of the Order of October 8 1975, be submitted to the Court by January 23, 1976; and it is further ORDERED that all documents referred to in the second part of the October 8th Order be submitted to the Court by January 30, 1976. JUNE L. GREEN, U.S. District Judge. [Exhibit 82d] BALDWIN V. FINNEY IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT NO. 76-1182 ROY BALDWIN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, V. JERVIS FINNEY, et al., Defendants-Appellants. NO. 76-1186 ROY BALDWIN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, V. JERVIS FINNEY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. NO. 77-1237 ROY BALDWIN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, V. JERVIS FINNEY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. MOTION TO REMAND The appellees, cross-appellants, Jervis Finney, et al., (hereinafter the "government") respectfully move that this Court remand the above-captioned appeals to the district court with directions that the lower court undertake the proceedings suggested herein. 1. In this action under the Freedom of Information Act, the plaintiffs below sought the disclosure of all records in the government's possession relating to the investigation and prosecution of Spiro T. Agnew for income tax evasion. The government resisted disclosure primarily on the ground that release of the requested records would interfere with the criminal proceedings, United States v. Mandel, et al., then pending before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, and that the records were thus exempt from disclosure by exemption 7(A) of the Act. The district court's acceptance in part, and rejectance in part, of the applicability of exemption 7(A) to the documents at issue, gave rise to the instant cross-appeals.1 2. Since the entry of the district court judgments in this case and since the filing of plaintiffs' opening brief, the defendants in the Mandel case were found guilty of certain charges of political corruption. Upon considering the impact of this development on the instant cross-appeals, it is the government's view that the question of the applicability of exemption 7(A)—the primary issue on the appeals-has been overtaken by external events, and for all practical purposes is moot since disclosure of the requested material at this point would not interfere with any pending or probable future enforcement proceedings. 3. The present inapplicability of exemption 7(A) does not resolve the case. There still remains the unexplored question of whether some other portion of exemption 7 (particularly exemption 7(C) which guards against the disclosure of information in law enforcement investigatory records which would "constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"), or some other exemption of the Act applies. Since the district court has not yet passed on these questions, the appropriate course is for the case to be remanded to the district court to allow it to make those judgments in the first instance. See NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 165–66 (1975). 4. We recognize that plaintiffs have already filed a brief and appendix, and have no objections if the Court were to deem it appropriate to tax printing costs against the government. Respectfully submitted, LEONARD SCHAITMAN (202) 739-3321, 1 Included in the materials at issue are four witness statements that were developed during the course of the Agnew investigation. By order of January 13, 1976, the district court ruled that two of the statements be withheld "in toto", and that edited versions of two others be released. Both plaintiffs and the government appealed the order, and the district court stayed disclosure pending appeal. On plaintiffs' motion this Court, by order dated April 9, 1976, stayed all appellate proceedings pending the district court's final judgment on the remaining documents at issue. The district court, after reviewing the remaining documents, determined that they were exempt from disclosure under exemption 7(A). Plaintiffs appealed that judgment, and that appeal was consolidated with the earlier cross-appeals. 2 While the district court in its January 13, 1976 order directing the disclosure of edited versions of two witness statements noted that deletions were made where disclosure might prejudice privacy interests, the record does not contain any factual or legal arguments of the parties on that question. Although the general applicability of other portions of exemption 7 was noted (see plaintiffs' Brief on appeal, p. 11), the dynamics of the litigation in the district court was such that the parties focused almost, exclusively on the applicability of exemption 7 (A). Should the Court remand the case to the district court to allow it to consider whether the material it found exempt under the now inapplicable exemption 7(A) is protected by some other exemption of the Act, it would be appropriate for the district court to similarly review its earlier ruling on the documents it held not covered by exemption 7(A), with the benefit of the views of plaintiffs and the government. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT NO. 76-1182 ROY BALDWIN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, V. JERVIS FINNEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. NO. 76-1186 ROY BALDWIN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, V. JERVIS FINNEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES. NO. 77-1237 ROY BALDWIN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, V. JERVIS FINNEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 3rd day of November, 1977, I served the foregoing Motion upon counsel listed below, by causing a copy to be mailed, postage prepaid, to: Ms. Diane B. Cohn, Alan B. Morrison, Esquire, Suite 700, 2000 F Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 PAUL BLANKENSTEIN, 202 739–3469, Attorney. [Exhibit 82e] BALDWIN V. FINNEY UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF NO. 76-1182 ROY BALDWIN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, V. JERVIS FINNEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. NO. 76-1186 ROY BALDWIN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, V. JERVIS FINNEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES. ROY BALDWIN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, V. JERVIS FINNEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPFLLEES. RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO REMAND In its motion to remand these cases to the district court, the government has stated its view that disclosure of the documents plaintiffs seek would not at this |