## Facts

- EPA conducted consolidated administrative proceedings on DDT registrations under FIFRA, producing an evidentiary record exceeding 9,200 pages.
- A Hearing Examiner concluded the DDT registrations complied with FIFRA, but the EPA Administrator later ordered cancellation of the registrations.
- For the Administrator’s use in deciding whether to cancel DDT registrations, EPA personnel prepared two internal summaries of the hearing evidence (one by the Judicial Officer’s staff and one by EPA attorneys).
- Montrose, a DDT manufacturer affected by the cancellations, requested the two summaries under FOIA.
- EPA denied disclosure, invoking FOIA Exemption 5 for intra-agency memoranda not available in civil discovery.
- In a FOIA suit, the district court reviewed the documents in camera, ordered disclosure, but made unexplained deletions from one summary.
- Both sides appealed: Montrose challenged the redactions; EPA challenged the disclosure order.

## Issues

1. Whether the two EPA staff-prepared summaries of the DDT hearing record were exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 5 as intra-agency memoranda protected by privileges recognized in civil discovery.
2. Whether any factual material in the summaries had to be segregated and released notwithstanding Exemption 5.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court’s disclosure order.
- The court held both summaries fell within FOIA Exemption 5 and could be withheld in full.
- Because the summaries were predecisional materials prepared to assist the Administrator’s decision-making, the district court’s partial disclosure and unexplained deletions were improper.

## Legal Principles

- FOIA Exemption 5 covers inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda that would not be available to a private party in litigation with the agency, incorporating relevant civil discovery privileges.
- Predecisional, deliberative communications prepared by subordinates to assist agency decision-makers are protected to preserve candid internal discussion and the quality of agency decision-making.
- Even where a document contains substantial factual content, it may remain exempt if the selection, organization, and emphasis of facts reflect advisory judgment such that disclosure would reveal the agency’s deliberative process.
- Segregation of factual portions is not required where separating “facts” from deliberative content would still expose the internal evaluative choices embodied in the summary.

## Conclusion

The court held that internal staff summaries of an administrative record prepared to advise the EPA Administrator in deciding the DDT cancellation matter were exempt from FOIA disclosure under Exemption 5 because they were predecisional, deliberative intra-agency memoranda whose release would expose protected decision-making processes.


Montrose Chem. Corp. of Cal. v. Train, 491 F.2d 63 (D.C. Cir. 1974)