Filed: May 22, 2000
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: and Boudin, Circuit Judge.(FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552.produced all but six of the documents.The parties cross-moved for summary judgment.government's favor. This appeal ensued. Lawton v. State Mut.Oil Co., 202 F.3d 381, 383 (1st Cir.magistrate judge's well-conceived rescript.
[NOT PUBLICATION — NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 99-2208
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1146, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
Martin R. Cohen, with whom Mark D. Roth was on brief, for
appellants.
George B. Henderson, II, Assistant United States Attorney,
with whom Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief,
for appellee.
May 18, 2000
Per Curiam. In this case, the plaintiffs sought to
obtain various documents under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. The paperwork pertained to a February
1997 indoor air quality study conducted with respect to an
agency workplace in Salem, Massachusetts. The government
produced all but six of the documents. Wanting the whole loaf,
the plaintiffs then brought suit to compel the disclosure of
these remaining items.
The parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The
district court referred the motions to a magistrate judge, see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), who perused the six disputed documents in
camera; found them protected under FOIA Exemption 5, 5 U.S.C. §
552(b)(5); and wrote a thoughtful report and recommendation in
which he urged the court to grant brevis disposition in the
government's favor.
The plaintiffs objected to the report and
recommendation. On de novo review, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b),
the district judge examined the disputed documents, approved the
magistrate's report, and entered summary judgment as he had
recommended. This appeal ensued.
We previously have stated that when a judge accurately
takes the measure of a case and articulates his or her rationale
clearly and convincingly, "an appellate court should refrain
-3-
from writing at length to no other end than to hear its own
words resonate." Lawton v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co., 101 F.3d
218, 220 (1st Cir. 1996); accord Cruz-Ramos v. Puerto Rico Sun
Oil Co.,
202 F.3d 381, 383 (1st Cir. 2000); Ayala v. Union de
Tronquistas, Local 901,
74 F.3d 344, 345 (1st Cir. 1996);
Holders Capital Corp. v. California Union Ins. Co. (In re San
Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig.),
989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir.
1993). This tenet has particular value where, as here, no new
law is broached, and the case on appeal involves, in the last
analysis, the application of settled legal principles to a
specific set of facts. Thus, we apply the tenet and affirm the
judgment below for substantially the reasons elucidated in the
magistrate judge's well-conceived rescript. We add only that we
too have reviewed the disputed documents, and that we believe
the magistrate's appraisal of them — especially his conclusion
that they are both predecisional and within the deliberative
process — is fully consistent with our holding in Providence
Journal Co. v. United States Dep't of the Army,
981 F.2d 552,
557-63 (1st Cir. 1992). We need go no further.
Affirmed.
-4-
