The New York Times v. NASA
Brief excerpts from the rather lengthy caselaw involved.
679 F.Supp 33, The New
York Times Company v. National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, June 3, 1987:
NASA has withheld the
tape... claiming that it is a "similar file" within the meaning of... Exemption
6 [which] provides that... the FOIA [does] not apply to "personnel and medical
files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
...the tape... contains no information about the personal lives of the
astronauts or any of their family members, but only the comments, observations,
and communications of certain of the Challenger astronauts
concerning the launching and flight of the Shuttle...
....Tape release ordered.
[ NASA appealed ]
852 F.2d 602, The New
York Times Company v. National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, July 29, 1988:
Challenger was outfitted
with three inflight digital tape recorders, each of which performed a separate
function. One monitored payload data, another monitored main engine data, and
the third--the "OPS 2" system involved here--recorded the astronauts' voices...
The OPS 2 system, which used voice-activated microphones mounted inside the
astronauts' helmets, began recording at 8 minutes and 25 seconds prior
to launch, and continued until the shuttle lost power 73 seconds after launch...
The tape suffered some damage from submersion in salt water for 43 days before
it was recovered, but NASA was able to produce a useable copy, which thereafter
was transcribed....
NASA asserts that because the tape contains identifiable human voices, it is
"related to" and "personal to" particular individuals and as such it surmounts
the "similar files" threshold. We disagree... To call the sound of a human voice
"personal information" distorts the plain meaning... of the phrase...
The judgement appealed from is accordingly Affirmed.
[ NASA appealed again ]
920 F.2d 1002, The New
York Times Company v. National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, December 7, 1990:
The district court
held that the tape failed the threshold test for Exemption 6 because it was not
within the category of "personnel and medical files and similar files" ...and
ordered the release of the tape. That decision was initially affirmed by a
divided panel of this court. We now reverse... NASA need not disclose
"information which applies to a particular individual" if its disclosure "would
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." ....Accordingly,
NASA is entitled to an opportunity to prove its claim that the release of the
tape would invade the privacy of the deceased astronauts, or of their families.
We therefore remand this case for the district court to consider...
782 F.Supp 628, The New
York Times Company v. National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, December 12, 1991:
NASA does not
dispute that the substantive information contained in the tape is technical and
non-personal. Rather, the "intimate detail" that underlies the privacy interest
in this tape is the sound of the astronauts' voices.... NASA... has, in fact,
provided the public with a transcript of the tape's substantive contents. But
how the astronauts said what they did, the very sound of the astronauts' words,
does constitute a privacy interest. This is the "intimate detail" that the Challenger families seek to
protect from disclosure....
The Court finds that the Challenger families' privacy
interest in the tape in question outweighs the public interest such that release
of the tape would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the families'
personal privacy. Therefore, the Court hearby denies plaintiff's motion for
summary judgement and grants defendant's motion for summary judgement.
[ In other words, based solely on those facts of the case not disputed by
either side, as applied to the law as the judge understands it, NASA is no
longer required to release the tape, and there is no need to have a jury trial
to determine this. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where NASA
ultimately won, but I do not have that legal reference available here. ]
Back to The Challenger's Final Minutes?