In Re Department of Justice, Barbara Ann Crancer v. United States Department of Justice

Siddeley lacks sufficient contacts However, Hawk Hawker 107 S.Ct. at the decision of design its railcars Minnesota. We vacate Siddeley did not with er se; designed its per in Minnesota remand with di- use district court and America.4 most of North for use in railcars prejudice to Soo rections to dismiss without Sidde- Hawker relationship between forum. re-filing appropriate in an Line’s and the State design of railcars ley’s appeal as it is dismiss Soo Line’s We also “pur qualify is too remote Minnesota moot. now poseful availment.” discussion, applica- Based on the above indicates Ferer factors

tion of the Aaron Siddeley is jurisdiction over Hawker sold in was

lacking. question The car in negligi- had Siddeley has Hawker

Canada. maintains no sales in Minnesota

ble has not state. It presence in that

business the state. laws of itself of the availed In re DEPARTMENT OF Siddeley railcars many if Hawker Even JUSTICE, Petitioner. Minnesota, this re- through have travelled parties third the actions of sulted from CRANCER, Appellee, Barbara Ann the state contact with cannot considered Siddeley re- Siddeley. Hawker by Hawker DEPARTMENT STATES UNITED its railcars because financial benefits ceives JUSTICE, Appellant. OF Minnesota, through but this ben- can travel juris- imposing personal efit will 91-2080, 91-2164. Nos. from “a it does not arise diction Appeals, Court of contact with United States constitutionally cognizable” Volkswagen, Eighth Circuit. Minnesota. World-Wide at 568. Once the car 100 S.Ct. U.S. Sept. 1991. Submitted American, North Hawker sold to was Dec. 1991. Decided it; conse- all control over Siddeley lost occurred that the accident quently, the fact Granted, Rehearing En Banc oc- type of fortuitous in Minnesota is the Feb. 1992. Opinion Vacated alone, support juris- that, currence will King, 471 U.S. Burger diction. Cf. Siddeley’s em- Hawker 105 S.Ct. at 2183. increase sales

ployment agent of an not contact with

the United States fact, demon-

Minnesota; the record Siddeley’s contract

strates that Hawker or indirect rela- Unity no direct had or with this accident

tionship with either Ultimately, Hawker

anyone in Minnesota. Minnesota

Siddeley's lack of contacts interest Minnesota’s

easily both overrides conve- and whatever providing a forum having the suit take

nience exist in Minnesota.

place

III. CONCLUSION personal court cannot assert

The district Siddeley because Hawker

jurisdiction over ply standards. virtually with AAR agree no market parties there do not com- for railcars that in North America

I. BACKGROUND Hoffa, Jimmy the former president of Team- Brotherhood International sters, Michigan July disappeared and, began apparently, is still The FBI conducting, investigation into Hoffa’s As a of these inves- disappearance. result efforts, tigative the FBI has accumulated 13,800 relating to pages of records over matter. 1987, Crancer, February who is Hof- In request daughter, filed an FOIA fa’s DOJ, an indi- seeking materials about gave information allegedly vidual who disappearance the FBI. about Hoffa’s request was denied basis Crancer’s FOIA, ex- of the which “records or informa- empts from disclosure compiled pur- for tion law enforcement D.C., McIntosh, ar- Washington, R. Scott only to the extent that the poses, but (Stuart and Leonard Gerson gued M. enforcement records or duction such law D.C., Stephen Schaitman, Washington, reasonably expect- ... could Mo., brief), Louis, on the Higgins, St. B. proceed- ed to interfere with enforcement appellant. 552(b)(7)(A). ings.” 5 U.S.C. § Mo., Clayton, ar- Greenberg, Richard E. 1989, all administra- February In after appellee. gued, for denied, suit filed appeals were Crancer tive compel- court to obtain an order in district McMILLAN, Judge, Circuit Before her the doc- ling provide the DOJ Judge, GIBSON, Circuit R. Senior FLOYD that suit was requested. While uments she WOLLMAN, Judge. Circuit infor- pending, submitted second Crancer any all sought request mation GIBSON, Circuit R. Senior FLOYD investiga- relating to the FBI’s Judge. After this disappearance. tion into Hoffa’s 91-2164EM, Depart In case number denied, her Crancer amended request was (DOJ) appeals the district ment of Justice request. the broader to include lawsuit Vaughn2 produce court’s1 order that 1990, for sum- the DOJ moved In June by Bar requested index to describe records later, the dis- one month mary judgment; pursuant (Crancer) Ann bara Crancer provide the DOJ (FOIA), court ordered 5 trict Act the Freedom of Information thirty within 91- Crancer with (1988).3 In case number U.S.C. 552 § the sum- opposing days for to use her seeks a writ 2080, alternatively the DOJ moved The DOJ mary motion. judgment prohibiting mandamus reconsideration; court re- ordering production grant the its order but did fused to interlocutory appeal rescind index. We dismiss index. produce the more time to man DOJ a writ of deny application for 1990, asked the DOJ October damus. Code States references to United Limbaugh, future 3.All Stephen N. United 1. The Honorable otherwise the 1988 version unless Judge the Eastern District will be to District States Missouri. stated. 820, Rosen, 826-28 2. See 977, denied, (D.C.Cir.1973), 415 U.S. cert. (1974). S.Ct. 39 L.Ed.2d ” Dis re Cessna power.’ discretionary the DOJ allow its order and modify Litig., 532 Antitrust trib. categories of only the States, v. United Cir.1976) (quoting Will same At the file. in the Hoffa contained S.Ct. 389 U.S. of nine list time, DOJ submitted which factors (1967)). “Other L.Ed.2d all to describe purported categories that mandamus of appropriateness the on bear affidavit file and in the documents the error correct the need include review to en- harm potential described that recur and likely to is which of if these activities forcement novel and of for the resolution guidelines released. were documents Central questions.” important Microfilm request in this denied court The district Corp., Basic/Four Corp. v. Serv. twenty the DOJ gave 1991 and January of denied, 459 Cir.1982),cert. (8th 1206, 1212 and submit full index prepare a days to 1191, 75 L.Ed.2d 1204, 103 S.Ct. U.S. re- in camera magistrate judge to a (1983). later, asked the DOJ month One view. it is within contends that Crancer and relief alternate judge magistrate creation to order court’s district judge magistrate allow proposed to index, consequently and of a camera. actual review jurisdiction not act outside court did this judge denied March, magistrate In this index in ordering create the DOJ time DOJ more afforded request, but Exemption that argues The DOJ case. to be index; was the index prepare due exemptions from other 7(A)is different year, 25% in one completed Court, this Supreme law from to case every court to the submitted to be indi appeal of court, courts and other DOJ April On months. three for a district appropriate it is never cates reconsider court to the district asked index when require a court or, in the alterna- order judge’s magistrate invokes agency interlocutory certify the matter tive, 7(A).4 mo- these denied court district appeal. The and is a novel one argument has DOJ’s later, the matter and weeks two tions any by directly addressed been has not this court. brought to been now in its conten is correct DOJ If the court. lacked tion that DISCUSSION II. a writ would then to order Jurisdiction A. issue Because remedy. this deciding whether by begin We inter is available writ of whether the case, hear this jurisdiction has court interlocutory this merits of twined as an appeal interlocutory or as an either matter, must decide whether we We of seeking mandamus. a writ action Vaughn- require a authority to had court of unique characteristics conclude In circumstances. in these type index Cf. occasion, to us, this allow case this S.S. and Ry., Airline re Brotherhood of DOJ. presented Cir.1979) issues (8th decide Clerks, 605 F.2d of merits curiam) (deciding to reach (per remedy extraordinary is an Mandamus was Court District dispute because exceptional “[i]f in those only “available order, ... issue the jurisdiction to without usur- judicial amounting to circumstances dis jurisdiction appeals of Co., a court Motor re Ford power,” of pation a writ means that order solve Cir.1984),or “where 274, 275 mandamus.”).5 itsof sphere ‘the court exceeds authority to power or lacked the this case differentiates point is this It require Vaughn index Justice, 844 F.2d Department v. Hinton id. See invoked. proffers to Cir.1988), (3d Crancer which demonstrate holding, Hinton, we need decide this 5. Because through mandamus. reviewable us allows doctrine order Exemp- the collateral based DOJ withheld dis Consequently, appeal. to entertain 7(D) contend 7(C) did not tions See, e.g., Keys Vaughn Indices Exemp- decide the issues at hand.

B. Use of tion (D.C.Cir.1987). form, Regardless not a unique it is This case is however, integral components certain that doc- court’s order of a district review any Specifically, parts index. disclosed, it a of a nor is uments be Vaughn indices usually communicate de documents are decision that district court’s scriptions every of each and document con This case asks us exempt from disclosure. file, including general tained in the de do a district to determine what scription of each document’s contents and are or deciding whether documents while (such general facts about their creation exempt from disclosure. are not date, time, document, place). For each responsibility has the The district court government claimed govern- of the applicability to review the identified, explanation why is and an as to exemption de novo. 5 claimed ment’s exemption applies to the document in 552(a)(4)(B). task is difficult This U.S.C. § question provided.6 government agency, ordinarily a because court, access to the doc- not the government argues the district court case of question. The seminal uments Vaughn require lacks the to a Vaughn v. Rosen articulated concerns required index because such an index is not mechanism that the need to find a about Exemption when is invoked. Su effectively system “permit preme re Court has indicated with the factual na- efficiently to evaluate 7(A), spect government to Vaughn, disputed information.” ture of particularized point need not to a harm to a concerns, From these 484 F.2d at 826. particular proceeding; in enforcement is now known as D.C. Circuit created what stead, argue (and government may Vaughn nothing more a which does hold) general courts that certain cate statements made than “correlate gories typically of documents will interfere justification with the Government’s refusal proceedings if the doc with enforcement Id. portions actual of document.” uments are disclosed. NLRB v. Robbins (footnote omitted). Currently, 827 Co., 437 U.S. 214, 223-24, Tire & Rubber Vaughn index is understood perform 2311, 2317-18, 2324, 236, 98 S.Ct. 57 important tasks: three of Rob (1978). In L.Ed.2d 159 the wake government analyze forces the [I]t bins, appeal have altered many courts of withheld, carefully any material it en- for a index their views on the need duty court to fulfill its ables the trial The ra is involved. when ruling applicability exemp- on the post-Robbins deci underlying tionale these tion, system adversary and it enables the index is sions has been that operate by giving requester as government unnecessary possible, as much information the ba- interference permitted to demonstrate present he can sis of which his case to and need categories of documents based the trial court. with enforce interference not demonstrate Justice, Department Lykins v. document-by-doc on a proceedings ment (D.C.Cir.1984). 1455, 1463 Scientology E.g., Church ument basis. (D.C.Cir. IRS, F.2d 152 Cal. v. 792 prescribed form for There is no a IRS, Barney v. J.); F.2d 1986) (Scalia, index; any acceptable form as Cir.1980) curiam) (“Un (8th (per provided by long as the affidavits government is not court’s efforts government assist der single appears sample for a document appeal number 91-2164EM 6. A index miss the in case deciding collateral order appendix whether the the Third Circuit's decision in without as an point applies Justice, out to this case. We also doctrine Department Conoco Inc. v. 724, analysis outcome of this case would Cir.1982). (3d 730-32 were if the collateral order doctrine not differ prejudiced by applied, so the is not appeal. to dismiss the our decision accomplish It gorized each document. showing specific factual amake required to requiring an affidavit task document withheld to each respect with describes, document-by-document ba on a actually interfere disclosure file, catego sis, the documents proceed enforcement particular with placed, document cases, into which each Moreover, ries of these in each ing.”). of each how disclosure description of and a reviewing a district was appellate court might interfere category of require a decision proceedings.7 enforcement already had with from order merely prevents district of the doc descriptions adequate provided as explanation document-by-document expla ing adequate as sought, well uments will interfere to how types particular as to how nations words, In other proceedings. enforcement interfere law could at issue require the cannot though E.g., Wright v. proceedings. enforcement deny Cir.1987); justify (7th 642, 647 OSHA, F.2d document-by-document ba on a Cir. disclosure IRS, v. Lewis government to sis, require can 1987); Curran document-by- categorization on a Cir.1987). its chosen (1st Furthermore, basis. document however, appellate time, has an noAt the authority verify that to the court has alters the suggested that Robbins court obligation to its has fullfilled government obligation to re- statutory district individually.8 examine applicability. exemption’s claimed view the argues that government our The exemption allow does not prohibits the district court Barney in in a law appear merely because We dis- issue here. entering the order Curran, at E.g., file. agency’s enforcement grant- district court Barney, the agree. In 475; v. Bureau Crooker F.2d at of the in favor summary judgement ed Firearms, Alcohol, Tobacco & govern- requiring the government without agency an relies (D.C.Cir.1986). When affirmed index. We ment create justifi- categorical and offers upon Robbins despite judgment summary grant of the under cations both index because of a the lack each still review 7(A), agency must the court satisfied the district were and Depart- individually. Bevis document adequate- government’s affidavits the that State, 801 F.2d ment of documents, categories the ly the described agen- the specifically, (D.C.Cir.1986). More possible belonged, and the they to which following tasks: cy perform must If Id. 1272-73. of disclosure. harms categories func- First, its define it must these provided with court is not the district Second, it must conduct tionally. materials, if it finds materials or in order to review ument-by-document insufficient, to be vided category. to the assign documents re- permitted to be district court must court explain to the how Finally, it govern- from the quire further information category inter- the release each ment. proceedings. enforcement fere with bar, clearly record case court well 1389-90. The Id. at was not court that agen- indicates verify that to its within by the supplied affidavits satisfied cate- properly and actually cy examined disrupts rarely it because be used degree should any particular suggest do not 7. We it process preferring and required, adversarial traditional specificity be judi courts’ dis- represents drain limited an enormous such decisions leave case-by-case basis. De E.g., be States exercised Cox v. United cretion cial resources. 1311-12 partment authority to does have the court 8. The Cox, 1978). light light in of the Cir. review, 5 U.S.C. in camera an conduct file, the dis we cannot fault of this sheer size argued 552(a)(4)(B). Although it § govern refusing accept trict court might this entire have settled in camera review. permit camera ment’s offer matter, procedure that such we have indicated one, to this In a situation similar where court’s dissatis The district government. presented finds itself with an district court given govern is understandable faction upon record which to make a insufficient 13,800 that all blanket assertion ment’s unlikely to sim- ruling, the district court 15-year documents, over a accumulated Even the court ply order if disclosure. categories nine de neatly into span, fit disclosure, quite likely it is were to order pages. Fur of five over course scribed this court would remand the case for that, arguments thermore, raised Crancer record, development thereby further belief, raised serious the district court’s saddling the district court an inade- validity govern about the questions to insure quate record and no mechanism dis categorization. search ment’s categories accurately re- government’s require court has trict contents of the Without flect the true file. as assur categorization well further function, perform index to this vital actually be all the documents ances accept will be forced Moreover, the categories. long no contentions with little to government’s information about it needs may believe Consequently, we the ef- scrutiny. believe document, verify only each dissenting opinion be to fect of the obligation to has fulfilled return status” to “blanket document, also to enable but each examine deny meaningful whenever disclosure challenge or to understand invoked, despite Congress’ government.9 If the district by the created contrary. intent to the govern verify that the is unable to argues that also catego correctly has examined ment that decided v. Rosen same court document, Exemption will each rized inappro- indices are has said that ex again become de blanket once facto 7(A) Exemption A priate invoked. when in law enforce emption of all documents cases, however, reading of these careful Bevis, 801 F.2d at 1389 files. See ment only disap- the D.C. indicates that Circuit scrutiny, the cate such individual (“Absent insofar proves the use of indices smaller ver no more than would be gories how they be used demonstrate as would disap exemptions’ the ‘blanket sions actually interfere each document would Congress in its 1974 amendment by proved See, e.g., proceedings. with enforcement FOIA”). (“A at 152 Scientology, Church of be alleviated These concerns cannot pur- have no served provide government to simply requiring the not ... did pose since ... categories” sug- as specific, “more distinct doc- showing that each individual require a dissent, Further post at 537. by the gested interfer- produce ument would such remedy appropriate categorization is (“Be- an ence_”); Crooker, at 67 finds the interfer- generic determinations cause [of unhelp- confusing, otherwise inadequate, or need permitted, are ence] present such document-by- does not The case at bar withholdings ful. not instead, situation; document_”). the concern issue the D.C. No case from a circuit) (or in the file any all the other Circuit from categories. requiring de- government’s by the a district court hibited described doe- requiring on a contents scriptions cannot be resolved a file’s issue This fact, Similarly, do categorization. ument-by-document we basis. further govern- has confirmed dissent’s view D.C. Circuit agree with the not all the to review ment’s obligations ... motivates threat of disclosure “[t]he explain how requested file and showing uments a government to make categories cho- fits into the at 537. each document exemption applies.” Post in- it had instance, between the two unless differentiate believe 15- For 9. belong in the not each witness statement year do formation old witness statements about category old witness state- as same 6-month file. However, would be unable ments. expla- showing and specific Bevis, quire a factual See government. by the sen why each document describing nation obligation, this Given 1389-90. F.2d at specific factual may require exempt, duty to conduct court’s district given the belongs showing why deci- as government's novo de explanation along an documents, category, district in a disclose not sion to category is ex- describing why the itself type of ask for this able must be courts government can make empt. How the Oth- information. document-by-document being required showing nothing more latter without will be erwise, courts district showing, majority prohibited government’s make stamps for rubber than not tell us. The FOIA does deny disclosure. for the a limited role such permit not does an between practical difference see no I courts. district exempt document is why each explanation category it is within why each Having explanation concluded to or exempt. power and discretion both court’s similar can document-by-document eases, must first der a for application concerning government’s grant specific factual Micofilm, document, “including general de- mandamus. Central a writ each (“[Arguable error with scription document’s contents of each (such is not a scope of trial court their creation general in the facts about mandamus.”). op. at date, time, place).” Majority for proper basis explanation of an individual Instead III. CONCLUSION document, how- of each non-disclosure categori- ever, require a majority agree that invocation Although we Because explanation nondisclosure. cal alter form cate- fit into distinct document must index, Exemption each does documents, id. or similar gory of the same some need mechanism eliminate for non- explanation categorical historically associat- functions perform the or necessarily the same disclosure Consistent with index. ed explanations the individual similar as lies within opinion, it prohibits. produce Tire order power to 7(A) is index when a deci addition, majority our reads Furthermore, court invoked. (8th IRS, 1268 618 F.2d Barney in sion v. doing so its abuse did not majority in Cir.1980), narrowly. The too deny ap- Consequently, this case. specific fac mean that Barney to terprets dismiss of for writ mandamus plication if the required be information tual interlocutory appeal. with the unsatisfied court is 7(A) exemption showing that government’s dissenting. WOLLMAN, Judge, Circuit Barney, op. at 534. Majority applies. that it within has is majority The decided exemption “[ujnder however, that holds to order required to 7(A) is not government index produce government to showing with re specific amake factual respect- I 7(A) is invoked. exemption that dis document spect to each withheld fully dissent. par actually with a interfere closure would Id. at proceeding.” enforcement v. Rob- ticular agrees that NLRB majority The Tire, added) (citing 214, (emphasis Co., 98 437 1273 U.S. & Rubber bins Tire 2323). 234-35, Oth 98 S.Ct. (1978), U.S. at and its 437 2311, 159 L.Ed.2d 57 S.Ct. See, e.g., the same. have said re- er circuits prohibit progeny (9th Cir. IRS, 378 v. its deci- Lewis government quiring 1987); v. document-by- Curran on a deny disclosure sion to of (1st Cir.1987); Church F.2d 475 attempts to 813 majority basis. The document of I.R.S., 792 Scientology however, holding prohibition, avoid this California of Campbell v. (D.C.Cir.1986); 152 may not re- F.2d although a district that on a factual information document- specific Ser- and Human Health Department of generic under this exclu- by-document basis (D.C.Cir.1982). vices, sion, opinion nullifies the ex- majority required FOIA, is government Under 7(A) provide. was intended emption that unless a requested release holding that its is majority contends The Curran, applies. See exemption limited exemption insure that necessary in order to has the The F.2d at 473. again a blanket ex become does demonstrating that withheld burden arguing disclosure, emption, that exempt from are by allowing the this result helps to avoid 552(a)(4)(B), district court and the U.S.C. § govern “verify that district court as to determination a de novo make catego correctly examined and To ment has applies. Id. exemption Majority op. at 535. document.” however, rized each burden, meet First, we have misplaced. is This concern informa- provide specific factual need “ courts and fed Barney stated federal document-by-document, ‘[t]he tion role to assume the judges se- eral ill-suited majority decision clearly holds. ” in FOIA cases.’ super-administrator undermines, completely over- of if not verely FBI, Cir. Cleary v. rules, Barney. Second, omitted). if the 1987) (citation Tire, Supreme Court In Robbins of dem its burden government cannot meet language of very ex- out pointed exempt, onstrating the information generic 7(A) contemplates that de- emption remains free to sim then the made and be terminations deny exemption. threat ply differently from other treated therefore, govern disclosure, motivates the 223-24, 98 S.Ct. U.S. at exemptions. 437 showing that the ment to make Circuit The District Columbia 2317-18. exemption applies. reasoned that by the generic If index submitted a claimed FOIA ... [w]hen to sustain is not sufficient exclusion, depend- generic of a consists then the district court exemption, category records rather upon ent so specific, distinct request more each indi- subject matter which than the each cate- how the court can determine contains, resort vidual record investigation. gory might interfere with Thus, in futile. NLRB Vaughn index Indeed, the District what exactly Co., Tire & Rubber v. Robbins [citation De- in Bevis v. Circuit ordered Columbia Supreme upheld, with- Court omitted] State, partment of a any provision out ma- upon (D.C.Cir.1986),a which case provide under Board’s refusal to Labor proposition jority relies obtained statements FOIA witness individually review each agency must unfair labor investigation pending agency must ument. While Vaughn index proceedings. A practice proper cate- to determine purpose since no ... have served would 1389, agency at gorical id. placement, require a show- did specific factual provide required to is not individual document ing that each See document. about each information interference, but could produce such F.2d at 265. Campbell, 682 generically, to classes applied be rather statements. as witness records such general, the too If the remain disputed examine the also F.2d at 152 court Scientology, 792 Church of hand first make a in camera to Moreover, exemption uments J.). under (Scalia, “ 552(a)(4)(B); 5 U.S.C. request- § determination. 7(A), nature ‘the inherent F.2d 379; Cleary, 811 Lewis, question is irrelevant ed ” (the uti- omitted) court should (citation Curran, F.2d at 474 exemption’ 681, [ma- lize camera examination FBI, “an in (quoting Irons determining in aid as an Thus, holding Cir.1987)). itself (1st terial] affidavits Government’s required to may Bevis, ); good in faith made accurate FRIEZE, not, Appellee, remedy is how The Donald H. index.10 ever, resort to v Congress enacted BELTON, BANK OF BOATMEN’S criminal ongoing in an hibit interference Appellant. Supreme Court’s deci- investigation. The No. 91-1030. generic category- to allow in Robbins sion Appeals, States Court United indices in by-category Eighth Circuit. factu- cases, requiring detailed rather than document-by-document al Sept. 1991. Submitted interest: when basis, important serves Dec. 1991. Decided dur- confidentiality is at stake “provision of the de- investigation, ing satisfactory index en-

tail which probably breach itself

tails would short, Curran, F.2d at 475.

dike.” requirement cure, exemption will cause the

these cases of the dis-

7(A), the carrier “to become

ease.” Id. the district court’s order.

I reverse

Order

February rehearing en suggestion for banc opinion previ- judgment and

granted. The panel filed are vacated.

ously argument before

This case is set Monday, May

Court en banc Paul, are al- parties Minnesota.

St.

lowed, supplemen- file required, to but not length. pages exceed 15 not to

tal briefs simultaneously are to be filed

The briefs on or before Clerk of this Court

with the

February disap- investigation into Hoffa’s No. doubt 10. In Dickerson 31, 1991), (E.D.Mich. July continuing, pearance with the clear is active and 90-CV-060045 sought being plaintiff proceedings the release of information of future criminal direction requested Vaughn in- FBI file and the Hoffa held that "in Moreover the court instituted." government's accepted cate- dex. The inspection the FBI files mandates that camera gorical examined certain documents case, instant the dis- not be disclosed.” In the camera, judgment granted summary to the opportunity to view trict court refused the 7(A). government on the basis of uments in camera. beyond any is "satisfied The court stated that it

Case Details

Case Name: In Re Department of Justice, Barbara Ann Crancer v. United States Department of Justice

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Feb 12, 1992

Citation: 950 F.2d 530

Docket Number: 91-2080, 91-2164

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.