Autoliv ASP, Inc. v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “criticism is not a recognized harm against which the deliberative process privilege is intended to protect” and rejecting “public confusion” or “misperception of agency positions” as sufficient justification for withholding
• acknowledging that public confusion matters when it would discourage agency candor or reduce agency efficiency
• noting that deliberative process privilege “was ‘intended to protect not simply deliberative material, but also the deliberative process of agencies.’” (quoting Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Train, 491 F.2d 63, 71 (D.C. Cir. 1974))
• “[C]riticism is not a recognized harm against which the deliberative process privilege is intended to protect”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).