Cal-Trim, Inc. v. I.R.S., CV 05-2408-PHX-ROS.
| Decision Date | 06 February 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 05-2408-PHX-ROS.,CV 05-2408-PHX-ROS. |
| Citation | 484 F.Supp.2d 1021 |
| Parties | CAL-TRIM, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
Jason Mark Silver, Stephen E. Silver, Silver Lockwood PLC, Scottsdale, AZ, for Plaintiffs.
Ivan C. Dale, U.S. Dept of Justice, Nicole Maria Stoduto, U.S. Dept of Justice, Civil Trial Section Eastern Region, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 19). For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion is granted.
Plaintiffs filed this action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, seeking the production of Defendant's records pertaining to the Plaintiffs for the tax periods ending December 31, 2000 through December 31, 2003.1 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment alleges that it had disclosed to Plaintiffs all documents as required under 5. U.S.C. § 552. It is further alleged that the remaining documents that were not disclosed are protected under one of the exceptions to the Freedom of Information Act, listed in 5. U.S.C. § 552(b). The Defendants have broken down these documents into seven categories-(1) examination workpapers, (2) agent's working papers, (3) case history notes, (4) interview notes, (5) contact sheets, (6) internal correspondence, and (7) discriminant function system ("DIF") scores. Plaintiffs respond that they are not seeking DIF scores. Therefore, the Court will address whether one of the exceptions listed in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) applies for each of the above six disputed categories of documents.
A court must grant summary judgment if the pleadings and supporting documents, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Substantive law determines which facts are material, and "only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Also, the dispute must be genuine, that is, "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
A principal purpose of summary judgment is "to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Id. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548; see also Citadel Holding Corp. v. Roven, 26 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.1994). The moving party need not disprove matters on which the opponent has the burden of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548.
The party opposing summary judgment "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [the party's] pleadings, but ... must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(e); see Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Brinson v. Linda Rose Joint Venture, 53 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir.1995). There is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party; if the evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). However, because "credibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge, ... the evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor" at the summary judgment stage. Id. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970)); see Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir.1995).
FOIA provides citizens access to government information, thereby insuring an informed citizenry, N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242, 98 S.Ct. 2311, 57 L.Ed.2d 159 (1978), and "was enacted in furtherance of the belief that an informed electorate is vital to the proper operation of a democracy." Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 644 F.2d 969, 974 (3d Cir.1981) (citations omitted).
Under FOIA, a government agency must promptly release agency documents, upon request, subject to nine specific statutory exemptions. Id. These statutory exemptions are exclusive and must be narrowly construed. Department of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361, 96 S.Ct. 1592, 48 L.Ed.2d 11. Moreover, an entire document is not exempt from release merely because a portion is exempt. Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 825 (D.C.Cir.1973). "Any reasonably segregable, non-exempt portion of a record is to be made available to the person requesting that record." Lame v. United States Dep't of Justice, 654 F.2d 917, 921 (3d Cir.1981).
If the agency fails to release the requested information, and all administrative remedies have been exhausted, the individual seeking the information can obtain review of the agency's denial in federal district court. Lame, 654 F.2d at 921. The court must review the agency's decision to withhold requested documents de novo, and the burden is on the agency to justify its action. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); Lame, 654 F.2d at 921. Manna, 832 F.Supp. at 870.
Summary judgment is typically used to adjudicate FOIA cases. Struth v. F.B.I., 673 F.Supp. 949, 953 (E.D.Wis. 1987). Moreover, a district court may award summary judgment on the basis of agency affidavits alone where the affidavits are sufficiently detailed and are submitted in good faith. Manna v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 832 F.Supp. 866, 870 (D.N.J.1993). "If the affidavits contain reasonably detailed descriptions of the documents and allege facts sufficient to establish an exemption, the district court need look no further." Lewis v. I.R.S., 823 F.2d 375, 378 (9th Cir.1987). Further, the agency is not required to provide a detailed list of withheld documents. Rather, non-disclosure may be justified on a categorical basis by making a general showing that one of the exemptions listed in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) applies. Id. at 380.
Defendant has provided two affidavits in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.2 The Defendants argue that each category of the withheld documents are subject to one of the following 4 exceptions to the Freedom of Information Act:
(b) This section does not apply to matters that are —
(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;
. . .
(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;
(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, ... (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, ... [or] (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law....
Internal Revenue Code § 6103(e)(7) states
(7) Return information. — Return information with respect to any taxpayer may be open to inspection by or disclosure to any person authorized by this subsection to inspect any return of such taxpayer if the Secretary determines that such disclosure would not seriously impair Federal tax administration. (Emphasis added.)
Defendant argues that the category of documents entitled "examination workpapers" is subject to exemptions (3) in conjunction with I.R.C. § 6103(e)(7), (5), (7)(A), and (7)(E). Defendant states these documents
were prepared by the revenue agent in connection with referring plaintiffs' case to Criminal Investigation (CI) for potential criminal fraud. Each of the Examination Workpapers documents contains the agent's development and analysis of the evidence obtained during the course of his examination of plaintiffs and reflects the agent's belief that plaintiffs have committed criminal fraud.
Defendant argues that the category of documents entitled "agent's working papers" is subject to exemptions (3) in conjunction with I.R.C. § 6103(e)(7), (5), (7)(A), and (7)(E). Defendant states these documents
were prepared by the agent as part of his determination whether to refer plaintiffs' case to CI for potential criminal investigation. The working papers consist of the agent's findings as to each of the topics covered by the primary Examination Workpapers documents. The notes summarize the issue(s), the facts or information gathered and from whom, whether additional documents were requested, the agent's analysis, the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code the agent believed applied, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial