RENO NEWSPAPERS INC. v. UNITED States PAROLE Comm'n
| Decision Date | 29 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. : 3:09-CV-683-ECR-RAM,: 3:09-CV-683-ECR-RAM |
| Parties | RENO NEWSPAPERS, INC., a Nevada, corporation, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
This is an action filed under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, challenging Defendants' decision to redact and withhold certain documents in response to Plaintiff's FOIA request.
Now pending are a motion for summary judgment (#13) filed by Plaintiff on July 21, 2010 and a cross-motion for summary judgment (#17) filed by Defendants on September 8, 2010. The motions are ripe, and we now rule on them.
On September 4, 2009, Plaintiff Reno Newspapers Inc., a Nevada Corporation doing business as RGJ Legal Affairs ("RGJ") reported that RGJ employee Martha Bellisle submitted a written FOIA request to the United States Parole Commission (the "USPC"). (Compl. ¶ 11 (#1).) On September 16, 2009, the USPC's FOIA specialist responded to RGJ, enclosing 19 pages of documents with certain portions redacted and stating that the USPC was withholding 92 pages in full pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) and 552(b)(7). (Id. ¶¶ 13, 14.) On October 5, 2009, counsel for RGJ responded in writing, specifically requesting a written index with respect to each of the withheld documents so that "RGJ would be afforded a meaningful opportunity to evaluate and potentially contest the USPC's action in withholding the requested documents." (Id. ¶ 15.) Also on October 5, 2009, RGJ appealed the decision of the USPC's FOIA specialist to the Chairman of the USPC. (Id. ¶ 16.) The administrative appeal reiterated RGJ's request for a written index with respect to each of the withheld documents. (Id.) By a letter dated October 19, 2009, the Chairman of the USPC denied the administrative appeal and refused to provide the RGJ with a written index with respect to the withheld documents. (Id. ¶ 17.)
On November 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed the complaint (#1) in the present lawsuit. On January 29, 2010, the FOIA specialist conducted further review of the Commission's records and sent 32 redacted pages to Plaintiff. (Ds.' Opp. and MSJ at 4 (#16).) On April 7, 2010, Defendants provided an additional 44 pages of records, 38 pages of which contain redactions. (P.'s MSJ at 10 (#13).) On May 25, 2010, Plaintiff appealed the April 7, 2010 disclosure to the Chairman of the Commission. (Id. at 10.) On May 26, 2010, Defendants provided the RGJ with an index of withheld and redacted documents. (P.'s MSJ at 10 (#13).) This index indicated that over 500 documents were withheld in full. (Id.)
On July 21, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (#13) asserting that documents requested by Plaintiff from Defendants are not protected under FOIA. On September 8, 2010, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and cross-motion for summary judgment (#16). On October 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a reply (#20) in support of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and in opposition to Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment.
On January 21, 2011, this Court filed an order (#24) granting Defendants fourteen days to file an amended Vaughn index with the Court and granting Plaintiffs fourteen days thereafter to submit a response. On February 7, 2011, Defendants filed their amended Vaughn index (#25) (the "Amended Index"). On February 22, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their response (#26) to Defendants' Amended Index.
Summary judgment allows courts to avoid unnecessary trials where no material factual dispute exists. N.W. Motorcycle Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994). The court must view the evidence and the inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Bagdadi v. Nazar, 84 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1996), and should award summary judgment where no genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate where there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party. FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a). Where reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue, however, summary judgment should not be granted. Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1261 (1996).
"Summary judgment is the procedural vehicle by which nearly all FOIA cases are resolved." Los Angeles Times Commc'ns, LLC v. Dep't of the Army, 442 F. Supp. 2d 880, 893 (C.D. Cal. 2006). The court conducts a de novo review of an agency's response to a FOIA request. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 755 (1989). The usual summary judgment standard detailed above does not extend to FOIA cases because the facts are rarely in dispute and courts generally need not resolve whether there is a genuine issue of material fact. Minier v. Cent. Intel. Agency, 88 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir. 1996).
Instead, in deciding whether summary judgment is appropriate in a FOIA case, the court must first evaluate "whether the agency has met its burden of proving that it fully discharged its obligations under the FOIA." Id. The agency must demonstrate that it has conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents. Zemansky v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 767 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1985). Second, if the agency satisfies its initial burden, the court must determine "whether the agency has proven that the information that it did not disclose falls within one of the nine FOIA exemptions." Los Angeles Times Commc'ns, 442 F. Supp. 2d at 894. We have previously held that the appropriate standard for summary judgment in FOIA cases is as follows: "[i]n a suit brought to compel production, an agency is entitled to summary judgment if no material facts are in dispute and if it demonstrates that each document that falls within the class requested either has been produced or is wholly exempt from the Act's inspection requirements." Nevada v. United States DOE, 517 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (D. Nev. 2007).
As detailed in our order (#24) dated January 21, 2011, government agencies seeking to withhold documents requested under FOIA are required to supply the opposing party and the court with a "Vaughn index," identifying "each document withheld, the statutory exemption claimed, and a particularized explanation of how disclosure of the particular document would damage the interest protected by the claimed exemption." Wiener v. F.B.I., 943 F.2d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 1991). In meeting its burden, "the government may not rely upon 'conclusory and generalized allegations of exemptions.'" Church of Scientology of Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of the Army, 611 F.2d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 1980) (quoting Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826 (D.C. Cir. 1973)).
A Vaughn index should satisfy the following requirements: "(1) The index should be contained in one document, complete in itself; (2) The index must adequately describe each withheld document or deletion from a released document; (3) The index must state the exemption claimed for each deletion or withheld document, and explain why the exemption is relevant." Voinche v. F.B.I., 412 F. Supp. 2d 60, 65 (D. D. C. 2006).
The FOIA creates a presumption in favor of disclosure of government documents. Dept. of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 360-61 (1976). An agency may withhold a document "only if the information contained in the document falls within one of the nine statutory exemptions to the disclosure requirements set forth in § 552(b)." Bowen v. United States Food and Drug Admin., 925 F.2d 1225, 1226 (9th Cir. 1991). These exemptions are to be narrowly construed. Cal-Almond, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agriculture, 960 F.2d 105, 107 (9th Cir. 1992); United States Dep't of Justice v. Julian, 486 U.S. 1, 7 (1988).
Furthermore, even if part of a document is FOIA exempt, the agency still must disclose any portions which are not exempt - i.e., all "segregable" information - and must address in its Vaughn index why the remaining information is not segregable. The district court must make specific factual findings on the issue of segregability to establish that the required de novo review of the agency's withholding decision has in fact taken place. Wiener, 943 F.2d at 988. The Court may not "'simply approve the withholding of an entire document without entering a finding on segregability . . . .'" Id., citing Church of Scientology, 611 F.2d at 744.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has not stated that there is a general presumption of good faith in an agency's affidavits, although other courts have applied such a presumption. See, e.g., Jones v. FBI, F.3d 238, 242 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing United States Dep't of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 179 (1991) "We generally accord Government records and official conduct a presumption of legitimacy."); Ingle v. United States Dep't of Justice, 698 F.2d 259, 265 (6th Cir. 1983)(quoting Cox v. United States Dep't of Justice, 576 F.2d 1302, 1312 "If the Government fairly describes the content of the material withheld and adequately states its grounds for nondisclosure, and if those grounds are reasonable and consistent with the applicable law, the district court should uphold the government's position.").
Our order (#24) dated January 21, 2011 found Defendants' original Vaughn index deficient and granted Defendants fourteen days within which to file an amended Vaughn index that (i) states with greater specificity why an exemption is relevant to a particular document; (ii) clearly states whether any information contained in a withheld document...
To continue reading
Request your trial