# Ralph H. Currie, Jr., and Carpets by Ralph Currie, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 2, 1983 · 704 F.2d 523

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9470499

## Case

- **Full name:** Ralph H. CURRIE, Jr., and Carpets by Ralph Currie, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** May 2, 1983
- **Citations:** 704 F.2d 523; 51 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1225; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 28371
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kravitch
- **Judges:** Kravitch, Godbold, Krayitch, Morgan
- **Cited by:** 36 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9470499

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that memoranda reflecting the direction and scope of the investigation, interviews with informants and information from third parties related to financial transactions constituted “return information” because they were compiled pursuant to an investigation, and determi…
- rejecting agency's argument that its decision to withhold tax returns under FOIA Exemption 3 should be reviewed for abuse of discretion under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., where plaintiff had brought an action to compel disclosure under the FOIA

## Opinion text

KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in the opinion of the majority, but write separately to emphasize my views with regard to the Vaughn index issue. The majority does not require appellee to furnish appellants with a Vaughn index for documents it withheld from disclosure. I concur because I agree that nothing in our cases compels providing a Vaughn index, or its equivalent, in light of in camera inspection of all relevant documents. I think the better policy, however, would be to require an index in all but the “rare” case.
In Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C.Cir.1973) the court discussed extensively the in camera review process of FOIA, noting the benefits of adversarial presentation, and the concomitant disadvantage of a procedure that involves only the withholding agency and the reviewing court:
*533 This lack of knowledge by the party seeking disclosure seriously distorts the traditional adversary nature of our legal system’s form of dispute resolution. Ordinarily, the facts relevant to a dispute are more or less equally available to adverse parties. In a case arising under the FOIA this is not true, as we have noted, and hence the typical process of dispute resolution is impossible. In an effort to compensate, the trial court, as the trier of fact, may and often does examine the document in camera to determine whether the Government has properly characterized the information as exempt. Such an examination, however, may be very burdensome, and is necessarily conducted without benefit of criticism and illumination by a party with the actual interest in forcing disclosure. In theory, it is possible that a trial court could examine a document in sufficient depth to test the accuracy of a government characterization, particularly where the information is not extensive. But where the documents in issue constitute hundreds or even thousands of pages, it is unreasonable to expect a trial judge to do as thorough a job of illumination and characterization as would a party interested in the case.
Id. at 824-25 (emphasis supplied).
Even where in camera review occurs, I believe it is a rare case indeed that could not benefit significantly from adversarial discussion of the applicability of a given FOIA exemption. Because this case involved very few disputed documents, all reviewed by the district judge, and because our cases previously have not stressed the benefits of this adversarial process, I concur in not requiring an index, or index equivalent, in this “rare” case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9470499. Public record. Not legal advice.