Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN THE MATTER OF KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION Doket 9080. Interlocutory Order, May, 1984 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF IN CAMERA TREATMENT Various exhibits in this proceeding have been subject to in camera treatment, pursuant to order of Administrative Law Judge James P. Timony. This order has now expired.

Third parties to this proceeding, Basic Incorporated ("Basic ), and J. E. Baker Company and Dolomite Brick Corporation ("Baker ), have requested a continuation of in camera treatment, by motions dated October 13, 1981 and October 15, 1981, respectively. In Commission proceedings, requests for in camera treatment must show that the public disclosure ufthe documentary evidence wil result in a clearly defined serious injury to the person or corporation whose records are involved. The showing may consist of extrinsic evidence or, in certain instances, may be inferred from the nature of the documents themselves.! That showing can be made by establishing that the documentary evidence is "suffciently secret and suffciently material to (the applicant' s) business that disclosure would result in serious competitive injury," and then balancing that factor against "the importance of'he information in explaining the rationale of(Commissions decisions. The Commission agrees that an extension of in camera treatment for these documents is justified. These are documents detailng sales of specific lines ofrefractories and related products, data regarded as extremely sensitive by both firms. Even though the statistics in question are over five years old, the companies argue a serious injury would be done them by release of this information, which they have never made available to the public.

The countervailing interest in public disclosure ofthe information does not outweigh the likelihood of serious competitive injury. A public understanding of this proceeding does not depend on access to these data submitted by these third party firms. Moreover, as third parties, the requests of'these companies deserve special solicitude. As a policy matter, extensions of confidential or in camera treatment in appropriate cases involving third party bystanders encourages cooperation with future adjudicative discovery requests. H P. Hood Sons, Inc. 58 F. C. 1184, 1188 (1961);see 16 C.FR 3.45(b) 1983). General Fouth Corp. 95 F. C. 352, 355 (1980);see Bristol Myers Co. 9U F. C. 455, 456 (1977) 500 Interlocutory Order For the reasons stated above and in the referenced motions, the Commission will extend in camera treatment to documents submitted by these third parties, until December 31 1985. This extension applies to CX 139E and 139H, and RX 499D and 499H.

Interlocutory Order 103 F.