## Facts

- Robert Bennett Schwartz, proceeding pro se, sought documents concerning an investigation of Peter R. Schlam.
- Schwartz requested records from the U.S. Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and separately requested related materials from Representative Peter A. Rodino, Jr., as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
- Rodino refused to disclose the requested materials.
- Schwartz filed suit asserting (1) a FOIA claim against the Department of Justice and (2) a federal common-law claim against Rodino based on the asserted right to inspect and copy public records.
- The court addressed only Rodino’s motion to dismiss the common-law claim; the FOIA claim against the Department of Justice was not resolved in the decision.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress is categorically exempt from the federal common-law right to inspect and copy “public records,” such that a suit to obtain congressional records must be dismissed at the pleading stage.
2. Whether Congress’s exclusion from FOIA implies an exemption from the separate common-law access doctrine.

## Decision

- The court denied Rodino’s motion to dismiss.
- The court held that Congress is subject to the common-law rule that permits public inspection and copying of public records.
- The court rejected the argument that Congress’s exclusion from FOIA establishes a comparable exemption from the common law.
- The court left open whether the requested materials were “public records” and whether Schwartz possessed any “interest” required under the common-law doctrine, indicating dismissal could be warranted upon an adequate showing on those points.

## Legal Principles

- Federal common law recognizes a right to inspect and copy “public records,” and the general rule treats the legislative, executive, and judicial branches as subject to that doctrine.
- FOIA’s statutory scope and exclusions are not coextensive with the common-law access right; FOIA covers “matters in Government files,” while the common-law doctrine applies only to “public records.”
- Congress’s decision to exclude itself from FOIA does not, without more, abrogate or displace the separate common-law access doctrine.
- Because FOIA is in derogation of the common law, any inconsistency between FOIA and the common-law doctrine is construed narrowly in favor of preserving the common-law rule.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the common-law claim against the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to proceed, holding that Congress is not categorically exempt from the common-law right to inspect and copy public records, while reserving for later determination whether the requested materials qualified as public records and whether the requester met any common-law interest requirement.


Schwartz v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 435 F. Supp. 1203 (D.D.C. 1977)