Wellman v. Dep't of Justice
| Decision Date | 27 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:14-cv-000348-MMD-WGC |
| Parties | MICAH K. WELLMAN, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
This case concerns pro se Plaintiff Micah K. Wellman's Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, ("FOIA") request seeking information from Defendant Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("the Government") about the Government's internal affairs investigation regarding Plaintiff. Before the Court is the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment ("the Government's Motion"). (ECF No 60.) Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Plaintiff's Motion"). (ECF No. 61.) With respect to the Government's Motion, the Court has also reviewed Plaintiff's response (ECF No. 63), and the Government's reply (ECF No. 65). With respect to Plaintiff's Motion, the Court has also reviewed the Government's response (ECF No. 64), and Plaintiff's reply (ECF No. 66). For the reasons explained below, the Government's Motion is granted in part, and denied in part, and Plaintiff's Motion is granted in part, and denied in part.
Plaintiff filed a FOIA request dated May 13, 2013, with the Government seeking "documents regarding ATF Internal Affairs Division Investigation number 20120006 initiated by Jeffrey E. Vind on or about October 13, 2011 . . . into myself, [Plaintiff]." (ECF No. 60-1 at 17.) The Government acknowledged receipt of Plaintiff's request on June 13, 2013. (Id. at 20.) But the Government did not release any documents to Plaintiff for some time. After some correspondence with the Government, Plaintiff filed suit to compel the Government to respond to his FOIA request on July 3, 2014. (See ECF No. 1.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserted violations of FOIA and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. ("APA"). (See id. at 1-2.)
The parties then engaged in motion practice. The ultimate result of that motion practice was that Plaintiff's APA claim was dismissed, but the Court allowed his FOIA claim to proceed. (See ECF No. 53.)
Meanwhile, prompted by this litigation, the Government released documents to Plaintiff in response to his FOIA request in five batches between December 17, 2014, and February 27, 2017.1 (See ECF No. 60-1 at 21-88.) The Government represents that the fifth release was also its final release, meaning that it has searched its records and released all responsive documents to Plaintiff. (See ECF Nos. 60 at 5, 60-1 at 79.) The Government also referred Plaintiff's request and certain potentially responsive documents to the Executive Office of the United States Attorney ("EOUSA") as part of the fourth release. (See ECF No. 60-1 at 56.) EOUSA reviewed these documents, determined most of them were non-responsive, and withheld the remaining documents from Plaintiff citing FOIA exemptions (B)(5) and (B)(7)(c). (See ECF No. 60-2 at 10.) EOUSA informed Plaintiff of its decision in a letter dated September 12, 2016, in which EOUSA also noted its decision as reflected in that letter represented the final action EOUSA would take in response to Plaintiff's request. (See id.)
The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials when there is no dispute as to the facts before the court. Nw. Motorcycle Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994). Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits "show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). An issue is "genuine" if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable fact-finder could find for the nonmoving party and a dispute is "material" if it could affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). Where reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue, however, summary judgment is not appropriate. See Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir. 1995). "The amount of evidence necessary to raise a genuine issue of material fact is enough 'to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial.'" Aydin Corp. v. Loral Corp., 718 F.2d 897, 902 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting First Nat'l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968)). In evaluating a summary judgment motion, a court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Kaiser Cement Corp. v. Fishbach & Moore, Inc., 793 F.2d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 1986).
The moving party bears the burden of showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact. See Zoslaw v. MCA Distrib. Corp., 693 F.2d 870, 883 (9th Cir. 1982). "In order to carry its burden of production, the moving party must either produce evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim or defense or show that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial." Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). Once the moving party satisfies Rule 56's requirements, the burden shifts to the party resisting the motion to "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. The nonmoving party "maynot rely on denials in the pleadings but must produce specific evidence, through affidavits or admissible discovery material, to show that the dispute exists," Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991), and "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764, 783 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted). "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
Further, "when parties submit cross-motions for summary judgment, each motion must be considered on its own merits." Fair Hous. Council of Riverside Cty., Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "In fulfilling its duty to review each cross-motion separately, the court must review the evidence submitted in support of each cross-motion." Id. Courts must also liberally construe documents filed by pro se litigants. See Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 2008).
The Government's primary argument is that it has complied with its obligations under FOIA and therefore this case should end. (See generally ECF No. 60.) With the exception of documents partially redacted because they are "non-responsive"—discussed in more detail infra Section IV.B.—the Court generally agrees. The Government bears the burden to show its response to Plaintiff's FOIA request complied with the statute, and to demonstrate that any documents or portions of documents withheld from disclosure were properly withheld from disclosure. See Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass'n v. Exec. Office for Immigration Review, 830 F.3d 667, 673 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) ("Immigration Lawyers"). "An agency can carry its burden by submitting a Vaughn2 index, along with affidavits from agency employees that describe the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail, demonstrate that theinformation withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption, and are not controverted by either contrary evidence in the record nor by evidence of agency bad faith." Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). "FOIA cases are very frequently decided on summary judgment." Nevada v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 517 F. Supp. 2d 1245, 1256 (D. Nev. 2007) ().
The Court finds that the Government has generally carried its burden here, subject to the exception discussed in more detail infra Section IV.B. The Court has reviewed the affidavits and Vaughn indices attached to the Government's Motion. (See ECF Nos. 60-1 at 1-14; 60-2 at 1-8 (affidavits); 60-1 at 24-29, 33-40, 45-54, 60-78, 81-88; 60-2 at 13-14 (Vaughn indices).) The Court finds that the affidavits submitted by the Government describe the Government's justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail, logically demonstrate that the withheld information falls within the claimed exemptions, and are not controverted by any evidence of the Government's bad faith. See Zemansky v. U.S. E.P.A., 767 F.2d 569, 574 (9th Cir. 1985) ().
Further, Plaintiff does not offer any evidence or argument in his opposition to the Government's Motion with respect to the exemptions cited by the Government to withhold certain documents, and the Government's justification for citing those exemptions. (See ECF No. 63.) Instead, Plaintiff devotes his response to arguing that the government improperly redacted portions of certain documents released to him by designating the reason for the redactions as 'non-responsive' in reliance on Immigration Lawyers. (See id.) Plaintiff makes the same argument relying on Immigration Lawyers in Plaintiff's Motion, which the Court addresses below. However, because Plaintiff presents no other evidence or argument in response to the substantive bulk of the Government's Motion, the Court agrees with the Government that summary judgment is appropriatehere. See Bhan, 929 F.2d at...
To continue reading
Request your trial