Professional Documents
Culture Documents
December 9, 2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2390
(5:14-cv-000390JBP)
___________________________________
Before
the
Court
is
the
U.S.
Environmental
Protection
where
appropriate,
investigating
threatened
plant
42 U.S.C. 7621(a).
EPA moved
These documents
papers,
and
other
reports.
EPA
conceded
that
it
had
[Doc. 76 at 18].
Instead,
On
official
actions
absent
extraordinary
circumstances.
See, e.g., Franklin Sav. Assn v. Ryan, 922 F.2d 209, 211 (4th
Cir. 1991); Simplex Time Recorder Co. v. Secy of Labor, 766 F.2d
575, 586 (D.C. Cir. 1985); In re FDIC, 58 F.3d 1055, 1060 (5th
Cir. 1995).
appropriate
to
prevent
officials appearance.
district
court
from
compelling
an
487 F.2d 25, 29 (4th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 918 (1974);
In re United States (Jackson), 624 F.3d 1368, 137273 (11th Cir.
2010); In re Cheney, 544 F.3d 311, 314 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Here, the district court found extraordinary circumstances to
exist because of an apparent conflict between EPAs position in
its summary judgment motion and its position before Congress.
Since 2009, McCarthy, on behalf of EPA, has responded to various
questions from members of Congress about Section 321(a). 1
The
district court inferred from these responses that EPA has never
made any evaluations of job losses under 321(a).
18].
[Doc. 164 at
[Doc. 76 at 1 (quoting 42
U.S.C. 7621(a))].
Accepting arguendo the district courts characterization of
McCarthys statements, we fail to see the contradiction. 2
EPA did
not claim that the documents submitted with its summary judgment
motion were prepared under or pursuant to Section 321(a), or
for the purpose of complying with that section.
Indeed, EPA
[Doc. 88 at 11].
It is not contradictory
circumstance.
We disagree.