# Amicus Curiae Brief — City of New York v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385001_1406%3A04 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1970 - **Citation:** 397 U.S. 248 ## Text FEB 24 1979 a : . ay the 3 eres ‘Supreme Court of the CiWROBRs _ October Term, 1969 FEB 541970 Let OFPCE OF THE LER No CITY OF NEW YORK, te Appellant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AUTOMO- BILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, “! “ ING., GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, CHRYSLER COR- PORATION, and AMERICAN MOTORS COR- PORATION, | Appellees. “On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central ewe: of California. BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE ON BEHALF OF THE COUN- TY OF LOS ANGELES (CALIFORNIA) AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, IN SUPPORT OF AP- PELLANT. CITY OF NEW YORK. : JOHN D. MAHARG, : County Counsel . JOHN H. LARSON, : Chief Assistant County Counsel ; DAVID D. MIX, Assistant County Counsel TRAVERS D. WOOD, : Deputy County Counsel -. 648 Hall of Administration Los Angeles, California 90012 soa Attorneys for Amici. WESTERN PRINTING COMPANY, WHITTIER—-OXBOW 6-1743 PCLERK INDEX | Statement of the Creme ca i mate 1 _ Interest of Amicus Curiae , we eee oe sp 8 ee | I. Introduction... sept sctai II. The Consent Judgment Frustrates Access to the Facts of the-Alleged Conspiracy ......... 10 JIT. The Decree Fails .to Provide Safeguards Necessary to. Promote the Congressional Purpose of Assisting Individual Litigants .. 12 IV. The Consent Decree Entered Below Is Not in 14 ‘ihe Publie Interest... . United States, 366 U.S. 683 (1961). : ‘ 2 3 INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE This brief Amicus Curiae is, submitted on behalf, of - the County of Los Angeles’ (California). and the Air Pollution Control District of the County of fos An- geles, anid i support of the Jurisdictional Statement filed with this Court on January 26, 197 (0, by appellant City of New York.’ The amici here have substantially the same inte rest, us appellant." ° « | There ‘is hardly nied: to imention thie continuing pr oblem air pollution poses for major urban areas such - as New York City-and the Los ae sa The urgency of the situation, especially in Los Angeles ~- County, where both the humuzin and the iadtemobile pep- ulation are increasing rapidly, has never beew more ob- - Vious:..\ solution to the control of automobile cinissions mist he forthe ‘oming carly in the new decade. The ( ‘ounty of Los Angeles and the Air Pollution Control District have been actively engaged in the control of air pollution for over two decades, The Air. Pollution Contre) Law. of 1947 (Cat. Heart & Sarety Cove), adopted ‘by the California Legislature *Since amicus here is a political subdivision of the State of California, let- ters of consent to filing of this rs f. or a motion for leavé to file, are unne- cessary. U.S. Sup. Ct. Rule 42(4), 28 U.S.C. It is fyrther hoped that the Court will give fale conskle hei to this brief, despite late filing. No notice of this appeal was received until nine’ days after appellant filed its ‘Jurisdic- tional Statement.\The period since then has been occupied with the writing and printing of this brief. Pursuant to the advice of the office of the Clerk of this Court, typed qopies of this brief were served upon all-parties prior to the ‘filing of printed gapies with the Clerk. “A motion for leavé to intervene, submitted by aniuct to the District C ourt reciting substantially the same grounds as the motion submitted by appellant was denied below. © | ; ; em 5 is recognized and used throughout the uation as a niodel _ for effective air pollution’ control regulations. The Air Pellution Control District has expended. approximately. $60,000,000. of “pulilic funds since its creation under the Act. Its program, its rules and reg- ulations, and its effectiveness are recognized through- out the nation and the world. No agenéy, including the © State of California and the Federal Government, can claim even to approach the record of the District in the field of air pollution a Be. 4 \ Los Angeles County, wiff?its low wind velovities - and frequent temperature inversions, is especially sus- ceptible to air pollution. Emissions of air coutaminants from stationery sources are strictly controlled by law ; but each day motor Vehicles discharge 12.000 tons 6f hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of- nitrogen, and other ( ontaminants into the air of the Los Angeles Basin. : ; , | The fact.that emissions from motor vehicles polite . the air has been known for inany vears. In the carly 1950's the automobile was clearly identified by scien- tists as the primary cause of the typical Los Angeles pliotochemic al ‘ smog.” These matters Were known to the automobile manu- facturers; and County officials regularly informed them and communicated with the in. The mimufaeturers neither recognized that they had any re man would conclude that any such agreement could forever protect. the indfistry. Its sele purpose must have heen to accotiplish: one thing —delay, Obvieusly. it has succeeded. The monetary gain to the industry from the de ‘lay inust -be estimated: in billions of dol- lars. The resulting irreparable damage to the publie cannot even be estimated. The Coruty and the public are justly concerned about the faet thiat thik automobile industry appears te have conuuitted a serious and eal- culated act of fraud? in violation of fede ral iw, and to have escaped any penalty for havins donesso. The judgment entered below does nie Leer te the detend- ants, It merely protects thein froma naolie trial Which would reveal the details of the conspiracy alleged. not conly to the public and a concerned Congress. but alse. to those private Individtaials aul public aceneies which have just and lawful elaine ‘agains? the alleged con- SPLRATORS, Indeed. the. ¢ halleng ed cetise nt jndemnent cmv be worth as muc ‘h in dollars to the indnst ry as the or isin delay, » “See Appendix Bopp 2la-23a ‘It will be our purpose, in this brief, to show, first, that the consent judgment entered below frustrates Qhe ‘ability of private litigants to obtain the informayfon which the United States Attorney General and the Federal (Grand Jury were able-to obtain; second, that the decree fails to provide safeguards necessary to pro- mote the Congressional purpose of hssisting individual litigants; and third, that the particular cousent judg- ment in this cise is not in the public interest. ARGUMENT I. INTRODUCTION. | The entry of a consent decree in antitrust cases is a judicial function, the force of which is not to adjudi- ‘ate the merits of the contested issues posed by the Gov- erhment’s complaint, bu rather to decide whether or not the court should ex@rcise its equity powers in such * a fiéshion as to make. the provision of the proposed settlement’ betiveen’ the Government and the defend-. wuts a decree of the court.” [t appears tobe the general View that the public interest is most often served by judicial approval of such decrees.'' Nevertheless, ‘tit is the court’s.duty to protect the rights of persons who - are not parties to the action and, ef course, the decree should not be approved if it is contrary to the public interest.""* Consequently, where ‘countervailing con-"— United States v. Carter Producti Co., Inc., 211 F. Supp. 144, 148 (SD. N.Y.,’ 1962) . ~ yd. . 12See Appendix A. Opinions of the District Court, Oral Opinion, at p. 3a. | 7 scciliad siderations of a substantial nature are present, a court would be justified in refusing to enter such a decree.” There are several factors whier sugyest that in this case the consent judgment should hot arg een ap- proved. 2 Consent decrees have been a traditional mechanism for the settlement of antitrust controversies without the burden of protracted litigation. As such they have justly received validation by this Court." The theory behind such judgments has been that the décree itself, if properly drafted, will -meet the anticompetitive practices alleged in the complaint and thus protect the public interest via the maintenance of unrestricted market forces, The approval by the District Court of the consent decree here in question Was evidently grounded on this rationale. The public interest, however, is not protected by a consent decree entered in a case Where such interest is obviously more than economic.” Increased air ‘pollu- tion leads to increased ‘social costs”, such as respira- tory disease and crop damage," the implications of . Which should be considered **countervailing consider- 13211 F. Supp. 144, 148, supra. ies & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311 (1928) See Appendix A, infra, Oral Opion, at p. 5a. Memorandum Olohdea. pp. l3a-l4a. 6Most activity in our sdciety, of course, can be said to have economic im- plications.. Reference here ix,made to the more precise concept of market economics with which antitrast legislation has tradition ally dealt 7A more detailed discussion of the effects of ais poll ution appears in the section of this brief entitled “Interest of Amicus Curiae hee nnin at p. 5 —10— : . giving private individuals who claim to have been injured by these |fteesses the right to found ‘their suits for redress upon the facts and judgments proved and entered iii suits by the Gov- ernment where the Government has upon its ewn initiative sued the combinations complained of and . won its suit... . It is not fair that the private liti- gant should be obliged to set up and establish again the facts which the Government has proved. He ‘annot afford, he has not the power, to make use of such processes of inquiry as the Government bas -command of. Thus shall individual justice be done while the processes of business are rectified and ‘squared with the general conscience,’™ In 1955, Congressman Wright Patman echoed Pres- ident Wilson's statement when he stated to the House Antitrust Subcommittee: | “2. You and I have recognized that we need a strong and effective antitrust policy to preserve ‘competition, We have recognized that a necessary and integral part of any such policy is full and effective enforcement of sour antimonopols® laws, For many years: it has been recognized that the ‘Government alone is not able to provide all of the necessary enforcement. The help of all citizens is -. “24Woodrow Wilson, “Special Address: Delivered at -a Joint Session of Con- gress,” January 20, 1914, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. XVI, Bureau of National Literature; p. 7918, as quoted in MacIntyre. of the Private Litigant in Antitrust Enforcement,” 7 Antitrust Bull "The Role 113 120 (1962). 3. 119- ‘ ee ay: nee ded. w know that private parties will help in thisendeavor if we afford them rightful opportun- ities, In other words, We ean expect ‘this help if we give them the right to proceed, aud see to it that they. are treated. reasonal ly respecting” recoveries of damages and costs of litigation. ix The Senate Vommittee re port on proposed amend - ments to Section 5 of the Clayton Act states: “At the time of enaetnient of the Sherman Act, the major emphasis was upoy methods of enforce- ment, amd it was believed that the most effective method. in addition to the imposition of penzilties. by the U nited Stites, Was to prov idle for private treble-damage suits. It was originally hoped tliat - this would encourage private litigants to -bear a ‘cousidetable ameunt oof the ‘birden and expense of enfore coment aud thus save the Government time and: money, | The enactment of the Claston Aet in 19T4 was im part a recognition by the Coticress that: Seetion 7-of the Sherman Net had net successfully -stimu- lated private ditixatiou for enforcement of the | Sherman Act. Since thet chactinent of the 4 ‘lavton Act, “the bulk of private antitrast fitigation has followed saitnedla governinent getion., so that the jude- hit’ lits and decrees in the le aferal prPereae “lini could he used toe istablis ha Ciuse, Awassing or “ide wee for antitrust causes woul otherwine beu prohibitive ly = Syate ment ot Res a] w“ right Patan’ hi. lore thee Nntitrust Sulbcwdnunttiee of the Comunittee on the fist siary. House’ of Ke piesentative on IK 1245 ‘August ©, 1998. Id at 11d-1Lly : \*? ites: Ler pensive task for most plaintiffs. OS. Reps No. OLY, 54th Cong., Ist Sess.. June 21,1955; US. Code | Cong. & Ad. News. 2329 (1955) ) (Eimphasis add- . ed). The Supreme Court in Linich Motors Corp. v. Ge M- eral Motors Corp., DAO ULS. DOS, (IHL) © xainie ae the history of the policy that assistance eto private litigants from government: action was to be encouraged us a significant factor. in compete vhedience to the anti+ trust Jaws. - The Court stated ; pai *Seetion 4 2 Of the ¢ ‘avton Aet was “adopted in’ response to a recone mdivt ion by President Wil- son that Congress ‘agree*in giving private individ- uals... the right te found their [antitrust suits for redress upon the facts and judginenuts proved and entered in-suits by the Government avhere the Goverume nt lias. eo ested. the combinations TE be plained of and won. its suits: . 51 Cong: Ree: 1964. Congressional reports. and delittes. en the proposal whi¢h ultinidtely became par. 5 retleetoa purpose to minindze the Mirdens of litigation for injuredsprivate suitors by making availible tethers. all matters previously: establis heal Ly the Govern nent i antitrust actions, oe In ¢ indmmon W. Aba A, Wols, Ane, Zlob. Sapp. 833, (ED. Mich. 1963), the € ourt hist tisseal the polies of the antitrust laws with respeet to private: treble damage actions: | ve The purpose of Seetion Mot the 4 lawton Net, Tithe 15. U28.C.. par. 1. whieh provides Poi pra’ —I1s— vate triple damage suits ix ‘to enlist “the business public... as allies of the government in enforcing the antitrust laws:"" the means chosen, on the oth er hand is te give the injured | party cumple reco petise for the wrong suffered” allowing three-fold recovery of damages.” Report of the Attoruey Gen eral’s National Conunittee to Study the Antitrust Laws, p. 378. (1955). In other words? the private antitrust suit is a substantial weapon in ef tectuat Ing anational policy of protecting, presery tag ame promoting: free couupetition in the beter hss t} Hace ‘hy | blending ‘antitrust policy with private COMER. | tory law.” (215 F.Supp. att SO), s The actions of appellant pee amici, via their appl cations to ifiterveue in the Dist riet Court, represcutes the blend. of public and private enforcement act thes contemplated’ by (‘ong ress. This consent decree frustrates thie: Cone resates purpose dy substambially Climinatitig the possil private-suits. Rather that assistiie private prliateat the decree requires then to duplicate the extensive gor” ernment investigation aru at fords the qleboredsants pellees an OPPortunits toseseague without CLE Laks — guilt. | | } The publie funds, rigmpower atl fagilytees ed by the Department of Justice in its tnvcstece this matter far execed the resourees | other plaintiff. The consent deereod howevs o, wens 7? - useless the results of the Vnatiteust: [hiv is a one } . , . ‘- —l9— and ed penditures, Tie deerer completed demtes te the + public, Which has been injured Dv dletetuiants” viela- tion of the antitrustdaws, any benefit fren: the gevern- tient investigation. Not only does the deotee specits that it is neither evidence nor an adtatsster: ot guilt, it omits sens prevision for the release of inturn then or evidence to private litigwnts. -/ | 2 “The obnission of girs dssistanee Ben ane prhatection of individual Ltisants sting in the peblie-trterest runs -eontrary te the Trequently stated polies of the gate Uist laws. “The Counts and District ’s main of jection here ds that the public Interest tie treble damnace anti trust ehfercement, as expressed by the Conoress. a Presa enfiot the United States; anal the Sti eiie ( ‘ourt, Is het \retected at all I this cheer tha Distriet Court ah tet raerels recone “an we roedrent ot the rt eee Mess it made-am independent jucheia! determination as : to the rel quer of the cheeroe ty prretewhine the publie I Interest, Unite d States v1. acitt. d> ta... 2K RUS. 106, ANS CHM). The deerve should hav sesstitnlted: previ SiOnsS to seetne the benefits «1 thie eeVerbenin nt aetion herein for private and public Htrosnts hoth idee ete uppetlaut j Pertrcnmul tied fientionus. to the deeree prtorite its entey ba the Pstoer Court, Theise nioditieations were te dive paecidesl the assist dee contemplated by Conocress te private litheants se that thes qateht have nile tueanine yal ascot the ex parnncditeane: oof peublic futels. aed the. ts et ooverm’ Poenit oftpenads ape the divestioatwes ci thy stter. Foy , . —2Q— example, the modifications would have thus enabled the County of kos Angeles and the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District to effectively. take up the role planned for thenras the other arm of antitrust en- foreement. The partnership hetween federal and ** pri- vate’’- plaintiffs envisaged by Congress would thus have operated as a truly substantial we: ipon by com bining the investigative ‘resources of the federal goy- ernment with the incentive of compensation by treble ‘damages for persons injured by the conduet of the de- fend: ints-appellees, The primary requested modifications imecluded the following: | a. The inclusion ofa limited admission of guilt to give the consent decree proud facie effect under. sii D(a). of the C layton Act; and, Y de The inelusion of terms.in the decree which san have inipounded the evidence vathered by the govermment and make it available to private litigants. , A. The Decree Should Have Included a Limit- ed Admission of Guilt. When the judgment Was signed, there should have heen included in-the decree a limited admission that the defendants violated the Sherman Aét as charged in the’ covermment complaint. This admission (com- monly known as an asphalt. clause’) would have heen solely for the purpose and to the extent necessary ae, | ee + to give prima facie effect to the decree in publie and’ private treble damage actions. The Department of Justice has previously recognized the noed to.cooperate With “private” litigants in pursuit of its obligation te further the public policy established by Congress. The ‘Department has accomplished this obtective by provid: ing for such limited adinissions of euilt as part of its ‘consent decrees. The consent decrees Ine liited States uv. Lake Asphalt and Petrol win Co. of Massachusetts, 1960 CCH Trade Cas. par. 69. 855 CD Mass. 1860 United States ve Bituninous Concrete Association, Tne., ct al, 1960 CCH Trade Cas. parr, GY STS DD. Mass. ~ 1960). and United States o. Allied ¢ | Cpitca?t ¢ ‘orpcel al, 1961 CCH Trade Cas, par. 69, 928. (1D. Mass. 1861) in eluded specifie provisions admittin: giuilt for mile poses of private actions by state and floes! Governments Which followed federal government snits. The decrees In each of these cases contain aprox xiniately the: fol lowing language : oh , defendants having oediaitted the allega tions contaimed in the VOVEENTEORD say ipelsudant herein, solely for the purpose and te the extent Necessary to vive the oblow ia sul Relbesettons tr proma facte effect stated in Scetion PE dadow in the sults specified Voesborw . cerned haat thee cot dae tv PPTLD TD aan TL. Phat on the basis of said Hrited adicdssien the defendants SPRATT N hereto hy eoetheageal an an unlawful combination aim keonsidnae. dno vieds tion ot Seetien Poot the She ae Vet os cele oy In the said ‘combate, this adjudicate whine Leet Bi « ‘the sole purpose. of establishing the promda facte effect of this Final Judgment, in the sutts speci- fied below, and for no other purpose. “Rach defendant is enjoited and restrained from denying that this Final Judement-has such prima fuctc effect inany such suit; provided, how- ever, that this section shall not be deemed to pro- hibit aay such defendant from rebutting such + prone facto evidence or from asserting any de- fense with respect to damages or other defenses “available to it.”” (The decree then sets out the state private actions to which the decree applies. ) (1960 em € ll Trade ¢ Cas. at par. ah 27>). The consent decree in this case permits the defend- ants to aveld an adjudication or admission of their euilt by agreeing simply to refrain in the future from repeating acts which have already succeeded in their Purpose, The dee ree enables the defendants lo deny to members of the publie vietimized by their conduet any benefit from: the government aetion aud will require each litigant. te atte mipt to duplicate the Nntitrust Ii-. Visien's e \pe niditure of funds and personny ‘| tii au rem : Vestigation at the same teatte ts and Issue ~ rele rread te in the government) complaint, More OVER, st te ve stiva- tion ane the (ime ot new Aetions will wdversely affect the purblie interest by sulistantially postponing the trial of this matter, ba Pivadel phia Most Author: itu. Amertean Radiator and Standard Sanitary ¢ ‘Orph, 260 F Supp. HOCK. DPA. LOT the courtoin refusing ° ® to delay discovers padceedings (na private treble - a ae damage suit whi& paralleled a government criminal antitrust action, stated: eee “Brom the specific enforcement role given the private treble damage plaintiff by Congress, it is easy to discern a Congressional interest in the ex- pedited trials of sue ‘h actions. It would be smomial- ous to conclude othe YWIse, The antitrust laws, them = function as the Congressional blueprint de- ened to keep the American cconomy operating within. the free enterprise guidelines mapped aut under these statutes. Any threat to the free enter- prise footings of our national economic superst ruc- ture, constitutes, in Coneress* judgment, an im- mediate and serious threat to our national welfare. The strong THEE HELE of triple POCOUCH EY ¢ HCOULUIES private litigants to Vigorous! y Cu bores the anti- trust laws. Against this backdrop. ‘uuwarranted stays of proceedings stvinie and offset any, incen tive otherwise contained in the possibility of ‘triple "repovery, Del av te nds‘to discourave pProseceu ion of civil litigation. As time passes, memories of wit- nestestade. The inherent value of a claim: for dam- aves, puhanced by potential triple recovery, dimin- ishes.** (269 I. Supp. at 542) Cemphasis added ). The government investigation took many vers even with the: vast resources, facilities, Hupaasery aie dooney at its disposal. The duplication of thet effort and expense by private jitigants must. of Necessity, create a serious delay in the trial ot wcler's eause. Mn plain fact as that nobody else has the facilities, man power, nd Maney to ly heate the offers ‘ - ar Se 'B. Appellant, Amici, and Other Private Liti- gants Are Entitled to Preserve the Avail- ability of Evidence Gathered in 1 the Gov- ernment Action. During the course of the government's investiga tion, documents were submitted to the Antitrust. Di- Vision by the defendants, co-conspirators, and other persons. ‘These documents were submitted both -vol- untarily and pursuant to subpoena. [i addition, testi- -qnony was taken of a mumber of witnesses -before the grand jury, We therefore seck this Court's protection of all the evidene “gathered by the gove ‘rhment In its investigation. There is, we belivve, a serious danger that the dectuunents collected by the eovermment, if re- turned to the persons who submitted then. will be dis: - persed or destroved, The identity and contents of such docume nts will thereby. heeotme pilaysically unavail- _ ableto all, litigants in the prosee ition of their private treble damage actions. This could well be fatal to any, private litigation, and would thus totally frustrate the ational antitrust polley previously discussed. The courts and the Antitrust Division ttsell have recounized the existence of this problen: and have sought to pro. vicle the private litigarit With aeeess te. or at the ver least protection of, the ey Vide hee cathered by the gov ernment, Minw sola Minimey aid Maonutaclartng €o. New Jersey Woodfinishing Co. SS US. 31 aig Qe (1965); ODT pane pave Refining Cora. Carte rove Fadl Yeo, PO4-LOb (9th ia Ob), cert, detect, ao tS OO) = »5 ™ Y - « : e (190b . Commoner alth Kitson Core. MMis-Chalmers Miu. Co. 2h F.Supp. 729, TE TIO ONAL. 1962) ; United States ve. Eta pe rab Row Pallishe s. due. and Related Cases, 67 © 612 through 67 © O29 OND HL, Nov. 20, 1967, unpublished): dl. PL ieod & Sous, Tne. Docket Nor T7OM, SS POPC LS PESee tise Cig9e1) Antitrust Handbook, PederalState Conterenee-an Mae titrust: Problems, US. Dept. ot Husties C1909). po 65. “This Courty-in Mennesote: Minin and Monifactar-. thy Co. vl New Jerse rT Woods eishine ER a4 | LS. oll (1905), discussed the bn helits to private litigants from prior government detlons contetupheted by Con Pes in Section 3 of the ¢ Layton Net! Aiiong these Deriefits, recording lo this Coeur was cEOCUSS toh Aloe Ley ey idence marshalled DN the waver biti nt, Phe Court stated : ji The veverhthent’s tratia! meTOn tay cad: the private Ltigant ina number or others. Plead Ings, transeripts ot bestitmota oxbilats and deen tents ape available te Rite i mest distances, In fact, the rules of the Coniunission seoppovidies do. CER spar, LAS Ge) EGO) Soe generally HACER pars Lt bet seq i9de Phe greater pesotirees “aud eX perftise of: the Conan sstom anid its stall ren der the pirivate suitor a tremendous benefit deside romans value he may derive tres hee Midenient or deerees Indeed. se useful is this serviee that vov- eruinent proceed ries. aan “Perec ned as oa hit jer sotiper of evidences Por private parties, See Bieks. es Vic DP, } antine wh A int ts ved dy wei Deuseue Actions,” 4 Antitrust Bull. 5 (1959); Loevinger, . “Handling a amt s Antitrust Damage Sait,” 4 Antitrust Bull. 29 (1959)." COST UScat BIO). Ine Ol yin pee LR fining: Ca, -*. Carte r, 332 F.2d 260 (9th Cir, 1964)s cert. denied, 379 Es: 900 (196-4) the — Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cireuit held that the exemption of consent decrees trot the operation of Section oa) of the Clayton Net did not give defendants: a right te nom-disélosure for an ietelinite: perior of lime or the right to wathhold: information which would otherwise be availyble to dther litigants who might have need of it. The Court also stated: ) — Ets Tmamaterial thatcOlvmopte could) possibly obtain the same iifortiation throuch the process of propounding its own interrogatories to Standard, nnd General, dt is eatitled fool none what those com- pentes and the alleged coccousprrators fold the Groverineut, ane This requires excioination of the dlocutnients Whieh were eXchanged, op exchanged and filed dm that aetlon. (So 2d at 266) Cem- phisisis ndded). Ih Ae sealled Mleetrieat Pequanponenenat eases (Come monmealllh edison Coc. Was Chaliecrs Mita. Co. 211 F.Supp. T20 ON SDR TIL. E62) en ‘of the Sienitieant ; re trial developments was the entry af an arder re- quiring weiteb defendant un the padvate Hthoation whieh followeedl the OVembireent orpraireelsccet pens ho pr tevee ma central depositary copies anid lists of vurtets corporate dloctumients that tid been tiberreitted te Philadephia erinc ts ~ hive stioatinge the brichiaistes, a ‘ yr The Federal Trade Commission in fH. 2?. Hood & Nous, Tne, Docket No. THIS BPC, 1Is4 \( L961) re- fused. the respondent's request that its doctiments he placed under seal to avoid exposure to possible treble damage plaintiffs. The Commission stated : “Certainly the exposure of the respohdent to possible treble damage actions iss ndt. the: type of injury which would constitute ‘good cause’ for secreting this evidence, Placing documents ‘te camera’ for this reason would constitute to direct attempt to frustrate and defeat the will ank intent of Congress, In enacting Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15). which provides in part that ‘any person Who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of wy thing foriidden.in the antitrust Jaws may sue therefor... and shall re- cover threefold the damaces . 2. 0°: Coneiress: in- tended that such private suits would supplement wad bolster the antitrust: enforcement efforts of government prosecution. This Coteressionak pur prose has heen recognized In\ the Supe mie Court in Lawler vo Nattonal Nereon Ne rreec, wherein the Court, holding that the chreunistamecs of that ease did not bar the actron as ces judteata, stated » | ‘Particularly is this sein view of the prub- lie interest in Vigilant enforcement of the anti trust laws through the disteanmentilify ot the private damage action.’ “EP has, aur \ ew, the secretion) ob ev tdetiec bor The purpose of frustrating pessible treble dariage plaitilts would be (+) )} osed ton Uda povalotn Lhiterrerst anid the clearly “expressed WaT ot Capen ~~) Obtpp aed ”- . | : . ‘ ,* ‘ . : Sie forts should hier clineateal ‘tee cenebanin, root bata ‘Tihs, private enforcement of the guttirust laws. (os PLLC. at Liss tise) The Antitrust: Division itself has recotniZed the Heel for prgservine the avathyality of ewan tits for, ; tse 1 plaimtitts ith private Geetbetis whieh Lille oc . 2 erijure nt suits, T lus. inf wehe df Norte N.t', bhavs pera Row Publishers,’ luc, aud Lie Lateat C'atme s, No. OF Col threeuch oF E ND TH New, 2ay Peey, vaniqenabelisds ed) the Ds trict (ont rite red ry ‘onkes itheut oh ee . * tion freon the Mititrs 1 ‘Lys Dstt Cte . 1s : re. a es “that iis tn the ayourbsli inte Pett that these alee hie aig raul juny SLO a hits, and a he itu puny Testimony Ie Mdentitiohle ginko preserved aad re titin tecether for possible tse 11h Chiewe troll clint “ae det denis. “The Court Chieti Sredeny ik thie’ chen Vibtietits ay Hittin it the custody of dota by Sarbhuch, Chiet of the Mid West Of five ad the Antitrus t this ert, poli tyet hes meg ordér BE the € jurt, : . * f o . z wee. ¢ ‘Autitrist flauddbogi,. coobeapetly nT thy the \nith : ie i. ; ‘ ; Me trupt Pave haem Uda ‘hodenad Site Capnberetes avn Antifrtiet Maoblonis CPO) tidieates that ihe Dy ds teony . , . . . " : ’¢ ,. stthiseribes te the conerpt ol precers tie evtdotioe carne Hh its eee, Lhe TILIA tpldertes Tbeetn thie dtinte itietat aol this Count itt meni tary Wii ti ued vn “. nilhaluming . wu New Jetacn Dd Biatshens (ww i) Per, weebeeerine ine a, sreepitatt wal 1 aden tihivetets ges cotthers owncdePiee. ‘The Hand ot, thi ti otiites ‘ aghs ‘ \ * - : . " . , Z . oun PAD : -~* * * 3 aad . "The j eran state Hraeerit +t fean Mine i sti Mining and. Miinutactariin) Roe rred te leleral - Trade *, ©: CHES sea we tones, hunt the min esany bee Lachout Th paubtis at wl Wis tree wetions. The jJasjnith rr Set nee emsarily Politais Abie relevant des Auiuie Lils jin ii result of thr: lederal duet terds, lanat tier lear aye 0 thieat Je tstenee ane identity atid havi, Mdyat ty “cok Srey bier 0 sorts ter chiscevens ‘ pricncanebin [ diserens ens dis due sibaaye Artie bys Scud, Vays ibiak ay pened itis : corelet . niider White by beet tt: aliseae bath toy otha ot ‘edeval Governniont are not directly relies 1eit ‘, “thi ale tedicnets Paertin Whieetiee thers warns Tiberi real 7 This presents thert dispersal or ade mane hin aul - Ubicvny: whieh the elite ph TI aie ee titled’ tir edge veer rid. be obtained Lreonys HoeentryaPaetum Mare os (Vatitras! Baal , fic faye a, The HMecwdlbice itlsed Poets a thasit . thas itespconsdoed tty eyeder ane conte ee PULP pe hencebrins Wil beollesWaab gay ‘the Harper al i ha tT ist 7 42) ‘ i itesel jitservea P * ° i 7® ’ . A p ; ; : hi the itastient HEGEL TOD, ttgemtertede ke cet thy Gaeta’ . ‘ ‘5 , , “* Ps ‘ frostannelty “thi emvacb earn Hi er behetues tt | Vitae 41 ville lee sepeyee Thanet il tte tied As Llier pergvanes * ‘¢ ¢ « . o 7 . . LAUDE ds tee fee Beteteet thee ‘ry litewte oof periaae Lit tsccinits sae : . ray oy 6 ’ r . . * ° e - * . Ld e . ° ° ° ’ . * - * . eo ° . 4 ’ im. , | ‘ , A ‘ *” , ° * ° . ° ’ . ; a) IV. THE CONSENT DECREE ENTERED BELOW. js |. | NOT IN. THE PUBLIC INTEREST [A. Introduction. ’ thy, rar iy a*t 4 . tj \! o ne ’ ba'bieditds “EPP et be Lott- ‘Ot Ulte-teanedtistey tava. pe ’ Ae . ¥ drei lean unl Carl ' \ tti 1 i} *- ‘ - , ber aS gh TL Chayesveb- burst rt 4 ’ : ; : ete) “ : ei Me . S- * @ ° . , ‘ “6 4 Bosnetite Ol ihhe \ Gtree@iit b% Ves P fad, } “ ’ 7 Aw ' ’ \ ty P » \ 4 * } * : bt ° ‘ jf ° 7. 1 « * *- a " s ; - i . ° | B« y ? ’ \ at ~ \t pace P') ast thie NPerriconcetiebeariy ca dans ly ‘hs (ends Apyoeties ~ fihabin the Ltn Cotteto a vuthe pied stisletipeait, as taweste Te Hpligete ae . i , bes 1 dae pret at ternsen™ boob pdate t Veneta bh sated ut cle trendline ay petalolys trial ine this eins ajipcur t heedlots of the Niahing efleer ot a xtenuled lit haere? ony thie eaenetatbinie fayts hee Pendle Gab, yi them. ) + % ; > . Wie de bhitialy cou lyt thisat in i, uo trial wend hry thi el hort ty) wedtuee aint peedtitiens Ce rtaa thie) Werbthd ties! digave ‘ ‘ Apepwrlion thie y ebeeds eel eh . prdettec Ute haps pene ees event. the wed + ie PMA T Pecans pertiss an they bimttos - Edt pecil Decor bat-asl 1} thy. atteany ctlenle” Vi Lebetbel ita ' tase shaving saved thie thie Pheewy- fade tas be patertaud eit caate | é ars Co havten Net he bd - e*] ae ; en at Er thy Pear dye my too thee RAD ABET : 57 Prey TORU TTI Nat onl * seat P| : . “54 : ire »= ; f . ¥ an , dey Tan thin: Hatheralet te 1. Vie Lich tist ‘ ttl — = - - - 5 ae ~ al \ , C. The Statutory Policy Arg J \. Defendants appellees argued s¢ Mermorandnam, po 20, “aN seu, } thiset the SHILULOny. poles fivars consent ile CHVCES, We think it ilows- tot, aT Piet Hl of this. ‘Sarge tien, Ville hits ‘audits a ) threat thy iY aed dens wentla shel th ehlorge bvett of thn Ne The reitsen ler thi ee fede uvi denen! prParN dm deat teaid thienn ih thus e'| Font, Codisent Teerees. Whereas thes have utility in semie eases, are bins bieein Liaivared ii> “SLAP polices, : Theres nething i the haw whieh requires a court foappreaye a deerer just Heegtise the de le nelanits have eedisegited teat. Fl there Were sl serie ol the cus prerraet ’ Phi beer Veritven i Hel iiatters went not have. been (decided li Hort, We contend that a the 1 lof. Thies cans ont Hielonent gs tet qa the |? miblte Hiterest be a eatin a wall Correale tg nse a the pei er ee so “denen elan (’. thaeay 1 hicotalel lv al! ppreveal con ‘pletely thi (eet tated 11} l ited Slules Nlandavd 3 ‘ / framering td Color ¢ rie Peed, i | ea [tty / SDNY. 1065)8°.. , le wo f : a TT vpolators pias es phate then Wrong doing i) pan\ tients sf Perko ty ttn bh ewe pt ips ti ir verhual’ linye one the WEtAt. anil TRA nyt thy: Friiprbe hel oes NW theca powerlul: deterrent fo lav violation, has been renal’ nit 4 xo ’ i” ihaves 4 have shows that” the SLatiitors policy At ens J rPesse «| i thy 4 counts itti ly & one loss is la Aa al per *, an pe : 7 . = e 2 * : Pp } As ' oh ' DD: The Interest of Amici IS the Public Interest! Preotenderite appellees stiscested at parce Obed the” Moastivorsetiebianas treat thy OehEEN bd beet oe % Wiis tt Purtiien: them owal datas ecaetivnis, and that this os rot su@in bent: Pdi Clouinits aul ha Pointe ‘ seat 1! terested qemarity. bee cbhsabiicngee We daavs pear : Spotetbilitie un poualolin Uveaadtdy aeneliny atin pa 4 hand trol Ns showte anethas baat. these oe rire Hhile beste prbartaat ity tai Vhorent) Trudeas tl