FOIA Update and Inventory Checklist

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

MEMORANDUM GC 95-7 June 5, l995

TO:

All Regional Directors, Officers-in-Charge,

and Resident Officers

FROM:

Fred Feinstein, General Counsel

SUBJECT: FOIA Update and Inventory Checklist

This update is an interim supplement to the existing guideline

memoranda: GC 88-1, “FOIA Guidelines” (January 4, 1988); GC 88-13,

“FOIA Guidelines” (October 21, 1988); OM 88-37, “New FOIA Fee

Schedules and Fee Waiver Provisions and Guidelines” (May 13, 1988);

and OM 92-30, “FOIA Guidelines” (April 22, 1992). A revised

comprehensive FOIA guideline is being developed.1

1. In open cases, other than as discussed below, the Agency

will continue to process documents as required by the previous

guideline memoranda.

2. In closed cases, current practice is modified as follows:

(a)

Board agent-prepared affidavits in closed cases

should be withheld under Exemptions 5, 7(C) and 7(D) unless

the affiant has brought a suit against the requester in another

forum that raises the same or related issues as the Board

proceeding.2 In that event, the affidavit should not be withheld

1 FOIA personnel are urged to review the Department of Justice Freedom of

Information Act Guide & Privacy Act Overview, particularly with respect to

FOIA Exemptions 2, 4, 5, 6, 7(A), (C), (D), and 7(E) which are generally

applicable to many of the documents contained in our investigative files. A

review of the Guide will provide an understanding of the Exemptions and their

applications to our documents. Each Region should be receiving a copy of

this publication annually. Contact your AGC if you are not able to locate

either the 1993 DOJ Guide (blue cover) or 1994 DOJ Guide (gray cover).

2 Exemption 5 privileges from disclosure “inter-agency or intra-agency

memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party . .

of the Exemptions and their

applications to our documents. Each Region should be receiving a copy of

this publication annually. Contact your AGC if you are not able to locate

either the 1993 DOJ Guide (blue cover) or 1994 DOJ Guide (gray cover).

2 Exemption 5 privileges from disclosure “inter-agency or intra-agency

memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party . . . in

litigation with the agency.” Exemption 7(C) protects from disclosure records

MEMORANDUM GC 95-7

-2-

under Exemption 5 or 7(D). Rather, the FOIA requester should

be advised that “apart from considerations under the FOIA, the

General Counsel has elected to exercise his discretion and will

disclose the affidavit.” The FOIA processor should then redact

information in the affidavit pursuant to Exemption 7(C) to protect

the privacy interests of others identified in the affidavit, as well as

any significant privacy interests of the affiant.

(b)

In applying Exemption 7(D)--protection of confidential

sources-- it is important not to respond to the request in a

manner that implicitly identifies the source. If a requester simply

requests “all documents in a file,” this is not ordinarily a problem.

Use Exemption 7(D) to deny any confidential source information

and the requester ordinarily will not be able to tell who those

sources were. However, if a requester identifies the individual

whose affidavit is sought, and the affiant is not the charging

party or some other individual whose provision of an affidavit is

so well known as not to warrant protection as a confidential

source, simply withholding the affidavit will have the unintended

consequence of showing that the affiant did, in fact, supply an

affidavit

sources were. However, if a requester identifies the individual

whose affidavit is sought, and the affiant is not the charging

party or some other individual whose provision of an affidavit is

so well known as not to warrant protection as a confidential

source, simply withholding the affidavit will have the unintended

consequence of showing that the affiant did, in fact, supply an

affidavit. In this event, the FOIA processor should respond by

neither admitting nor denying that the named individual supplied

the affidavit.3 Along with the appropriate language for

withholding affidavits under Exemptions 5, 7(C) and 7(D), the

FOIA processor should state that, if such affidavit were in the

file, it would be exempt from disclosure under those Exemptions.

(c)

Non-Board agent-prepared witness statements,

position statements, and attachments to Board agent-prepared

affidavits should be disclosed with appropriate deletions to

or information compiled for law enforcement purposes which could

reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal

privacy. Exemption 7(D) precludes such records where disclosure could

reasonably be expected to identify a confidential source. The criteria for

determining protected privacy interests are discussed infra. pp. 7-9.

3 See Phillippi v. CIA, 546 F.2d 1009, 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1976). It is important to

follow this procedure whenever denying a request that seeks affidavits from

named individuals, even if those individuals did not supply affidavits.

Otherwise, savvy requesters would soon learn that a response neither

admitting nor denying the existence of an affidavit means that an affidavit was

supplied.

.

3 See Phillippi v. CIA, 546 F.2d 1009, 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1976). It is important to

follow this procedure whenever denying a request that seeks affidavits from

named individuals, even if those individuals did not supply affidavits.

Otherwise, savvy requesters would soon learn that a response neither

admitting nor denying the existence of an affidavit means that an affidavit was

supplied.

MEMORANDUM GC 95-7

-3-

protect privacy interests, confidential sources, and/or material

that is privileged from disclosure by Exemption 4.

3. In open and closed cases the Agency will release to all

requesters:

(a) Formal documents and Exemption 2 “low 2” items. “Low

2” refers to trivial administrative material which does not affect the

public or the ability of an individual to institute or maintain a

proceeding before an agency. “Low 2” material may be routing

slips, initials, case assignment cards, return receipt slips, NLRB

casehandling forms, which includes CHIPS forms, and filing

instructions. If the request is for all documents in the investigative

file, the requester should be advised concerning formal and low-2

documents as follows:

The file(s) contains formal documents including the charge,

dismissal or denial letters, as well as routine administrative

material including internal routing slips, NLRB casehandling

forms, return receipt slips and envelopes which are not being

forwarded at this time with the understanding that you do not

seek such material. If this understanding is incorrect, said

documents, with appropriate deletions, will be forwarded to you

upon written request addressed to the Regional Director (or the

undersigned).

If a follow-up request is received, the FOIA processor should supply

the above material with appropriate deletions to protect privacy and

confidentiality interests privileged from disclosure by Exemptions

7(C) and 7(D), as well as information privileged by Exemption 5

ropriate deletions, will be forwarded to you

upon written request addressed to the Regional Director (or the

undersigned).

If a follow-up request is received, the FOIA processor should supply

the above material with appropriate deletions to protect privacy and

confidentiality interests privileged from disclosure by Exemptions

7(C) and 7(D), as well as information privileged by Exemption 5.

The FOIA processor should not withhold or delete any material

solely because it identifies Board personnel.

(b) “No go” Advice memoranda -- memoranda that direct the

dismissal of all charge allegations addressed in the memoranda,

and do not also contain other directions -- are to be disclosed in their

entirety. “No-go’’ Advice memoranda will have been drafted in order

to avoid clearly unwarranted invasions of personal privacy pursuant

to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(a)(2)(C). Requests for all other types of Advice

memoranda must be referred to the General Counsel’s Freedom of

Information Act Officer in Washington. These include “go”

MEMORANDUM GC 95-7

-4-

memoranda, “casehandling”4 memoranda, and “mixed no-go”

memoranda, e.g., those that also contain “go” or “casehandling”

instructions.

(c) “GC Memoranda” -- Memoranda in the format GC XX --

that contain the notation “Release to the Public” are, of course, to be

released in their entirety. Requests for other GC Memoranda, as

well as requests for any “OM Memoranda,” should be referred to the

General Counsel’s FOIA Officer in Washington.5

go”

memoranda, e.g., those that also contain “go” or “casehandling”

instructions.

(c) “GC Memoranda” -- Memoranda in the format GC XX --

that contain the notation “Release to the Public” are, of course, to be

released in their entirety. Requests for other GC Memoranda, as

well as requests for any “OM Memoranda,” should be referred to the

General Counsel’s FOIA Officer in Washington.5

(d) The FOIA processor should release any documents

previously submitted by, or addressed or copied to, the requester (or

its attorney) when such material had been provided by the requester

during the course of the investigation or addressed or copied to the

requester during the investigation. As with material discussed in

3(a) above, such material should not be released in the absence of

a specific request. Where the request is for the entire file, in addition

to the language set forth in 3(a) above, the requester should be

initially advised that:

We are not providing documents submitted by you or

addressed or copied to you (or your client) during the

investigation of this charge with the understanding that

you already possess said documents.

4. Recent case law requires that FOIA processors modify

Agency practices respecting issues arising under Exemption 4 and

in balancing protected privacy interests against the public interest in

disclosure for purposes of applying Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

(a)

Exemption 4 precludes the Agency from releasing to

a FOIA requester trade secrets and commercial or financial

4 Casehandling memoranda are those that direct neither issuance of a

complaint nor dismissal of a charge, but rather deal with some other

intermediate aspect of the processing of a case. They include, for example,

deferral memoranda, memoranda directing further investigation of a case,

and all Section 10(j) memoranda

commercial or financial

4 Casehandling memoranda are those that direct neither issuance of a

complaint nor dismissal of a charge, but rather deal with some other

intermediate aspect of the processing of a case. They include, for example,

deferral memoranda, memoranda directing further investigation of a case,

and all Section 10(j) memoranda.

5 The General Counsel’s FOIA Office in headquarters maintains a list of GC

and OM memoranda that have been released to the public. Often a phone

call or E-mail to that office will suffice to determine whether the memoranda

may be released. Contact either Beryl Rothman at (202) 273-3848 or John

Hornbeck at (202) 273-3847.

MEMORANDUM GC 95-7

-5-

information obtained by the Agency from a “person” where the

information is privileged or confidential.6

In Critical Mass Energy Project v. NRC, 975 F.2d 871, (D.C. Cir.

1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1579 (1993), the Court drew a

distinction for Exemption 4 purposes between commercial

information that is secured by compulsion and commercial

information that is voluntarily provided. With respect to

information obtained under compulsion, the FOIA processor

must apply a two part analysis: Whether “disclosure would be

likely either (1) to impair the government’s ability to obtain

necessary information in the future, or (2) to cause substantial

harm to the competitive position of the person from whom it was

obtained.” Id. at 878, quoting National Parks and Conservation

Ass’n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Although it

is unlikely that disclosure would adversely affect the

government’s ability to compel the disclosure of information, the

court noted that the government would still have an interest in

assuring the reliability of information which may be provided

under compulsion in the future

d. at 878, quoting National Parks and Conservation

Ass’n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Although it

is unlikely that disclosure would adversely affect the

government’s ability to compel the disclosure of information, the

court noted that the government would still have an interest in

assuring the reliability of information which may be provided

under compulsion in the future. However, with respect to

information that has been voluntarily submitted to the

Government, the non-disclosure test is more easily met:

Exemption 4 precludes the Agency from supplying to a requester

information that “is a kind that the provider would not customarily

make available to the public.”7

The standard with regard to voluntarily submitted information is

controlled by the practice of the individual provider, not the

6 “Person” is defined broadly for FOIA purposes: a “person” may be a

partnership, corporation, association, or public or private organization other

than an agency. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 551(2). Trade secrets, commercial and

financial information are also broadly defined. Generally, information that

relates to the provider’s business activities, including the activity of non-profit

organizations, is commercial. See Critical Mass Energy Project v. NRC, 644

F. Supp. 334, 346 (D.D.C. 1986). Documents prepared by the Agency can

come within Exemption 4 if they contain summaries or a reformulation of

commercial information supplied by a person.

7 Most of the documents in Board case files will have been voluntarily

submitted. Documents obtained by subpoena or Board or court order,

however, are not voluntarily submitted for purposes of Exemption 4 and the

test for disclosure as set forth in National Parks, supra. should be applied.

ption 4 if they contain summaries or a reformulation of

commercial information supplied by a person.

7 Most of the documents in Board case files will have been voluntarily

submitted. Documents obtained by subpoena or Board or court order,

however, are not voluntarily submitted for purposes of Exemption 4 and the

test for disclosure as set forth in National Parks, supra. should be applied.

MEMORANDUM GC 95-7

-6-

general practice of an industry or an objective measure of what

reasonably would be publicly disclosed. Further, the customary

treatment standard allows for the provider to have made some

disclosures of the information consistent with its own business

interests, so long as those disclosures were not to the public.8

Id. at 880.

It is important that FOIA processors take care in insuring that

protected Exemption 4 material is not released to requesters,

because release of such material may expose the Agency to

litigation. Further, if the FOIA processor determines that

documents or information arguably within Exemption 4 are

disclosable, the Agency is required by Executive Order No.

12,600 to promptly notify the submitter prior to disclosure and

provide the submitter an opportunity to comment on the

proposed disclosure.9 The submitter must be allowed a

reasonable time, e.g. a week, to object to disclosure of the

information. The FOIA requester also must be advised that the

submitter is being given this opportunity to comment. As part of

any objection to disclosure, the submitter should be asked to

provide a description of its treatment of the information, including

any disclosures that are customarily made and the conditions

under which such disclosures occur

a week, to object to disclosure of the

information. The FOIA requester also must be advised that the

submitter is being given this opportunity to comment. As part of

any objection to disclosure, the submitter should be asked to

provide a description of its treatment of the information, including

any disclosures that are customarily made and the conditions

under which such disclosures occur. After receipt of the

submitter’s description of its treatment of the requested

information, the FOIA processor should then make a

determination as to whether the information “is of a kind that the

provider would not customarily release to the public.” If it is

determined that information (1) voluntarily given the Board

reveals information that the submitter would not customarily

make available to the public, or (2) the provider would be

substantially harmed by disclosure of information secured by the

8 The FOIA processor should be mindful of the fact that a given submission

might contain information that is not customarily provided to the public by the

submitter, as well as information that is customarily made public, such as a

company’s promotional materials or its public securities filings. Only the

former information is covered by Exemption 4.

9 The Agency has not yet developed regulations implementing the Executive

Order. Until such regulations are finalized, the procedures set forth herein

should be followed. Further, a telephone call to the submitter soliciting

authorization for disclosure will often result in receiving such authorization.

Such authorizations must be in writing.

former information is covered by Exemption 4.

9 The Agency has not yet developed regulations implementing the Executive

Order. Until such regulations are finalized, the procedures set forth herein

should be followed. Further, a telephone call to the submitter soliciting

authorization for disclosure will often result in receiving such authorization.

Such authorizations must be in writing.

MEMORANDUM GC 95-7

-7-

Board by subpoena or court order, the information should be

considered protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 and

withheld. A decision to withhold under Exemption 4 must be

promptly communicated both to the FOIA requester and the

submitter. If the determination is to disclose commercial

information over the submitter’s objection, the submitter must be

given a brief statement explaining the decision at least 5 days

prior to a specified disclosure date.

(b)

Exemption 7(C) permits an Agency to withhold

information compiled for law enforcement purposes where

disclosure “could reasonably be expected to constitute an

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” In United States

Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of

the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989), the Court enunciated a new test

for balancing protected privacy interests against the public

interest in disclosure. In Reporters Committee, the Court held

that Exemption 7(C) precludes disclosure of the contents of a

FBI rap sheet to a third party. There are several elements of the

Reporters Committee decision particularly relevant to Agency

FOIA processors. First, concerning the identification of personal

privacy, the Court held that the privacy interest protected by

Exemption 7(C) is broader than that protected by Exemption

6,10 in that Exemption 7(C) prohibits “unwarranted” invasions

which “could reasonably be expected to constitute” an invasion

of privacy and Exemption 6 prohibits only “clearly unwarranted”

invasions which “would constitute” an invasion of privacy. Id. at

756

of personal

privacy, the Court held that the privacy interest protected by

Exemption 7(C) is broader than that protected by Exemption

6,10 in that Exemption 7(C) prohibits “unwarranted” invasions

which “could reasonably be expected to constitute” an invasion

of privacy and Exemption 6 prohibits only “clearly unwarranted”

invasions which “would constitute” an invasion of privacy. Id. at

756. The Court explained that an individual’s privacy interest in

personal information is not vitiated by previous public disclosure

where that disclosure has been for limited purposes and not

readily obtainable. Specifically, the fact that a diligent search at

multiple locations could turn up the information at issue would

not justify release of information which linked individuals’ names

to private information. Id. at 770-771. Second, in determining

whether an invasion of privacy would be warranted within the

meaning of Exemption 7(C), the Court made clear that the

identity of the requester and the purpose for which the request is

made are generally irrelevant. Id. at 771. For example, the

press has no stronger claim than would “a neighbor or

10 Exemption 6 protects “personnel and medical files and similar files the

disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of

personal privacy.”

MEMORANDUM GC 95-7

-8-

prospective employer” in balancing the privacy interest against a

public interest in disclosure. Id. The Court explained that

because the FOIA “focuses on the citizens’ right to be informed

about ‘what their government is up to,’” the public interest in

disclosure may outweigh the personal privacy interest only in

regard to “[o]fficial information that sheds light on an agency’s

performance of its statutory duties . . .” Id. at 773

acy interest against a

public interest in disclosure. Id. The Court explained that

because the FOIA “focuses on the citizens’ right to be informed

about ‘what their government is up to,’” the public interest in

disclosure may outweigh the personal privacy interest only in

regard to “[o]fficial information that sheds light on an agency’s

performance of its statutory duties . . .” Id. at 773. The Court

emphasized that the purpose of the FOIA “is not fostered by

disclosure of information about private citizens that is

accumulated in various governmental files but that reveals little

or nothing about an agency’s own conduct.” Id.

Finally, and importantly, the Court made clear that in balancing

the public interest in disclosure against the privacy interest, it is

appropriate to make “categorical decisions” and disregard

“individual circumstances” when the information sought is of a

type “in which the balance characteristically tips in one

direction”.11 Id. at 776. The Court went on to conclude that it is

appropriate to conclude categorically that “a third party’s request

for law enforcement records or information about a private

citizen can reasonably be expected to invade that citizen’s

privacy, and that when the request seeks no ‘official information’

about a Government agency, but merely records that the

Government happens to be storing, the invasion of privacy is

‘unwarranted’.” Id. at 780.

priate to conclude categorically that “a third party’s request

for law enforcement records or information about a private

citizen can reasonably be expected to invade that citizen’s

privacy, and that when the request seeks no ‘official information’

about a Government agency, but merely records that the

Government happens to be storing, the invasion of privacy is

‘unwarranted’.” Id. at 780.

(c)

In Reed v. NLRB, 927 F.2d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 1991),

cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 912 (1992), the Court, applying the

principles of Reporters Committee, privileged the nondisclosure

of Excelsior lists under Exemption 6. The Court, noting that the

term “similar lists” in Exemption 6 broadly applies to any

Government records on an individual which can be identified as

applying to that individual (citing U.S. Dept. of State v.

Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595-601-602 (1982)), found a

11 In so holding, the Court modified its position in NLRB v. Robbins Tire &

Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (1978), that, while it is appropriate to balance

categorically under Exemption 7(A) (all witness statements in open cases),

balancing under Exemptions 7(B)(C) and (D) must be done on a case-by-

case basis. Although the Court’s modification in Reporters’ Committee

applies specifically only to 7(C), the Court noted that it had approved

categorical balancing under Exemption 5 in FTC v. Grolier, Inc., 462 U.S. 19

e it is appropriate to balance

categorically under Exemption 7(A) (all witness statements in open cases),

balancing under Exemptions 7(B)(C) and (D) must be done on a case-by-

case basis. Although the Court’s modification in Reporters’ Committee

applies specifically only to 7(C), the Court noted that it had approved

categorical balancing under Exemption 5 in FTC v. Grolier, Inc., 462 U.S. 19

(1983). And see discussion infra. of Exemption 6.

MEMORANDUM GC 95-7

-9-

privacy interest in the names and addresses of individuals

included in the Excelsior lists. Id. at 1251. The Court then found

that the lists “revealed nothing about the Board’s conduct of

representation proceedings or its performance of any other

statutory duty” so as meet the Reporters Committee requirement

of a public interest that would warrant disclosure. Id. at 1251-

1252. Finally, as in Reporters Committee, the Court concluded

that the Agency could withhold all Excelsior lists categorically

without consideration of individual circumstances. Id. at 1252.12

(d)

Consistent with these cases, FOIA processors, under

Exemptions 6 and 7(C), should refuse categorically to honor

requests which seek personal information, unrelated to the

Agency’s mission, about individuals. However, the right to

withhold categorically does not relieve FOIA processors from the

obligation to segregate disclosable from undisclosable

information. See n. 8 supra. and see Reporters Committee, 489

U.S. at 765-766. Where the requester seeks information that

implicates privacy interests but also does “shed light on the

agency’s performance of its statutory duties,” the information

should be supplied where the redaction of all identifying

information would be sufficient to protect privacy interests.

5

ble from undisclosable

information. See n. 8 supra. and see Reporters Committee, 489

U.S. at 765-766. Where the requester seeks information that

implicates privacy interests but also does “shed light on the

agency’s performance of its statutory duties,” the information

should be supplied where the redaction of all identifying

information would be sufficient to protect privacy interests.

5. Exemption 7(E) protects from disclosure all law

enforcement information which “would disclose techniques and

procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or

would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or

prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk

circumvention of the law.” The first clause of Exemption 7(E)

provides “categorical” protection for “techniques and procedures” not

already well known to the public. Even generally known procedures,

however, have been protected from release where “[t]he techniques

themselves may be known to the public, but the circumstance of

their usefulness . . . may not be widely known.” Parker v. United

States Dept. of Justice, No. 88-760, slip op. at 8 (D.D.C. Feb. 28,

1990), aff’d in pertinent part, 934 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1991).

Exemptions 7(E)’s second clause separately protects “guidelines for

law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if [their] disclosure

12 The General Counsel, apart from considerations under the FOIA and in the

exercise of discretion, will disclose to a labor organization a copy of the

Excelsior list that had previously been in the possession of that labor

organization.

separately protects “guidelines for

law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if [their] disclosure

12 The General Counsel, apart from considerations under the FOIA and in the

exercise of discretion, will disclose to a labor organization a copy of the

Excelsior list that had previously been in the possession of that labor

organization.

MEMORANDUM GC 95-7

-10-

could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.”

Under both clauses in Exemption 7(E), the FOIA processor must be

careful to disclose all reasonably segregable, nonexempt

information. Information contained in Operations-Management and

General Counsel memoranda, which have not been released to the

public, may contain information privileged from disclosure under

Exemption 7(E).

6. The attached FOIA inventory must be completed whenever

a FOIA or Privacy Act (PA) request is processed. The inventory

should be forwarded to the Office of Appeals upon receipt by that

Office of an appeal from a FOIA or PA determination. The items

marked in the inventory with an asterisk (*) are available to all

requesters without redaction, regardless of whether the documents

are contained in an open or closed case.

7. A response to a FOIA or PA request should identify the

material sought by the request and the material disclosed as well as

the FOIA processor’s determination with respect to fee category

placement and the amount charged for processing the request.

If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please

contact the Director, Office of Appeals, by E-mail or by telephone at

202-273-3760. This memorandum, as well as the OM and GC

memoranda which it references, are available on the “FOIA Bulletin

Board” on E-mail.

F. F

rocessor’s determination with respect to fee category

placement and the amount charged for processing the request.

If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please

contact the Director, Office of Appeals, by E-mail or by telephone at

202-273-3760. This memorandum, as well as the OM and GC

memoranda which it references, are available on the “FOIA Bulletin

Board” on E-mail.

F. F.

Attachment

Distribution:

Washington - Special

Regional - All Professionals

NLRBU

Release to the Public

FOIA INVENTORY

DATE OF REQUEST:

DUE DATE:

DATE OF RECEIPT:

EOT:

MEMORANDUM GC 95-7

-11-

CASE NAME

CASE NUMBER

NAME OF REQUESTER:

RELATIONSHIP TO CASE:

DOCUMENTS

Check if

document in

file

Items with one * are always disclosable

without redaction in both open and closed

cases.

Disclosed

Yes/No

Partial

Redaction

-Y/N-

(Retain

copies of

redactions

Exemptions

Claimed

Charge *

Region's Acknowledgment Letter *

Notification to Parties that Charge filed *

Form NLRB 877 - Affidavit of Service *

Post Office Return Receipts *

Form NLRB 4701 - Notice of Appearance *

Form NLRB 4813 - Notice of Designation

of Representative *

Form NLRB 4069 - Showing of Interest *

Form NLRB 5081 - Questionnaire on

Commerce *

Service Sheet *

Case Assignment Sheet *

Telephone Log

Request for Withdrawal of Charge

Region's Letter Approving Withdrawal

Request *

Region's Agenda Memo or FIR

Region's Advice Submission Memo

“Go” Advice Memo or casehandling memo

“No-go” Advice memo *

Check if

document in

file

Items with one * are always disclosable

without redaction in both open and closed

cases.

Disclosed

Yes/No

Partial

Redaction

-Y/N-

(Retain

copies of

redactions

Exemptions

Claimed

thdrawal

Request *

Region's Agenda Memo or FIR

Region's Advice Submission Memo

“Go” Advice Memo or casehandling memo

“No-go” Advice memo *

Check if

document in

file

Items with one * are always disclosable

without redaction in both open and closed

cases.

Disclosed

Yes/No

Partial

Redaction

-Y/N-

(Retain

copies of

redactions

Exemptions

Claimed

MEMORANDUM GC 95-7

-12-

Affidavits -Board Agent Prepared (See

next page)

Attachments to affidavits, including Board

Affidavits (See next page)

Non-Board Agent Prepared Statements

(See next page)

Board Agent Notes to File

Draft Memos

Position Statement(s) submitted by

Charging Party, Charged Party or other

(See next page)

Collective-Bargaining Agreement *

Arbitration Awards *

Newspaper clippings *

Union Constitution/Bylaws *

Articles of Incorporation *

Transcript of Board hearing before ALJ *

Leaflets/Flyers (See next page)

Copies of Board/Court Decisions (See

next page)

Settlement Agreement *

Case Disposition

Region's Dismissal Letter *

Closed Case Form or Report

Comment on Appeal

Appeal to the General Counsel

Office of Appeals - Acknowledgment Letter

*

Appeals Memo

General Counsel Minute

Office of Appeals - Letter to Charging

Party *

Complaint and Notice of Hearing *

Notice Posting *

Briefs to ALJ/Board *

Check if

document in

file

Items with one * are always disclosable

without redaction in both open and closed

cases.

Disclosed

Yes/No

Partial

Redaction

-Y/N-

(Retain

copies of

redactions

Exemptions

Claimed

List All Other Documents In File, and

identify each affidavit, statement,

leaflet/flyer, Board, ALJ or Court decision

ting *

Briefs to ALJ/Board *

Check if

document in

file

Items with one * are always disclosable

without redaction in both open and closed

cases.

Disclosed

Yes/No

Partial

Redaction

-Y/N-

(Retain

copies of

redactions

Exemptions

Claimed

List All Other Documents In File, and

identify each affidavit, statement,

leaflet/flyer, Board, ALJ or Court decision

MEMORANDUM GC 95-7

-13-