## Facts

- A U.S. Air Force B-29 crashed near Waycross, Georgia on October 6, 1948 while testing secret electronic equipment with civilian observers aboard; three civilian observers and six crew members died.
- The widows of the deceased civilian observers sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
- During discovery, plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 to compel production of the Air Force accident investigation report and statements from the three surviving crew members.
- The United States resisted production; the Secretary of the Air Force filed a formal claim of privilege asserting that disclosure would reveal military secrets related to a highly secret mission.
- The Judge Advocate General submitted an affidavit asserting disclosure would seriously harm national security and related military interests, while offering to make the surviving crew members available for examination except as to classified matters.
- The district court ordered production and, after the United States refused, entered judgment for plaintiffs as a sanction; the Third Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the United States may withhold an Air Force accident report and witness statements in FTCA discovery based on a formal claim that disclosure would reveal military secrets.
2. What role a court plays in assessing such a privilege claim, including whether the court must inspect the documents.
3. Whether the Government must choose between disclosing privileged information and losing the case in civil FTCA litigation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that the United States made a valid claim of privilege against disclosure of military secrets within the meaning of Rule 34’s “not privileged” limitation.
- The Court ruled that imposing FTCA liability as a Rule 37 sanction for refusing to produce privileged materials subjected the United States to liability beyond Congress’s consent.
- The Court rejected applying the criminal-case rule requiring the Government to disclose or suffer an adverse termination; that rule does not govern civil suits where the United States is a defendant only by statutory consent.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 34’s reference to “not privileged” incorporates evidentiary privileges recognized at law.
- A privilege against revealing military secrets exists in the law of evidence and may bar discovery in civil litigation.
- A formal privilege claim must be asserted by the head of the relevant department; courts determine whether the claim is properly invoked while avoiding methods that would risk disclosure of the protected matter.
- Where there is a reasonable possibility that military secrets are involved, the privilege may be sustained without compelled production, and judicial inspection is not required in all cases.
- Litigant necessity does not automatically overcome the privilege; the showing of need is weighed and may be reduced where alternative, nonprivileged evidence is available.
- The FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity does not authorize courts to impose liability as a sanction for the Government’s assertion of a valid evidentiary privilege.

## Conclusion

The Court recognized and applied the state secrets (military secrets) privilege to block discovery of sensitive Air Force investigative materials in an FTCA suit, holding that a formal executive claim supported by a reasonable danger to national security prevents compelled disclosure and cannot be penalized through Rule 37 sanctions that expand the Government’s consent to suit.


United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953)