Trentadue v. FBI, et al

Filing 1

[9610450] Civil case docketed. Preliminary record filed. DATE RECEIVED: 11/05/2008 Docketing statement due 11/21/2008 for Federal Bureau Of Investigation and Federal Bureau Of Investigation's Oklahoma City Field Office. Transcript order form due 11/21/2008 for Carlie Christensen. Notice of appearance due on 11/21/2008 for Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Federal Bureau Of Investigation's Oklahoma City Field Office and Jesse C. Trentadue.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

JESSE C. TRENTADUE,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

vs.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION and FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
OKLAHOMA CITY FIELD OFFICE,

Case No. 2:04CV772 DAK

Defendants.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Jesse C. Trentadue’s Motion to Conduct
Discovery. The court has carefully reviewed the written memoranda submitted by the parties.
Pursuant to local rule 7-1(f), the court has concluded that oral argument would not be helpful or
necessary, and thus the court will determine the motion on the basis of the written memoranda.
See DUCivR 7-1(f).
Plaintiff filed this action in August 2004, alleging that the FBI had failed to provide
certain documents that were responsive to his FOIA request. In the instant motion, Plaintiff
seeks an Order from the court allowing him to take–and videotape–the depositions of Terry Lynn
Nichols and David Paul Hammer. The FBI contends that this court does not have jurisdiction to
award such relief because, among other things, after this court issued its Memorandum decision

resolving Plaintiff’s FOIA claims, there no longer existed any ‘case or controversy’ sufficient to
confer subject matter jurisdiction on this court.
The court, however, disagrees with the FBI’s contention. This case has not yet been
closed by the court and remains on the list of the court’s active pending cases. In the court’s
view, the March 30, 2006 Amended Memorandum Decision did not necessarily end this action.
Specifically, on May 5, 2005, the court found that the FBI’s search was not reasonably
calculated to discover the requested documents, and the court ordered the FBI to search specific
case files, to produce unredacted copies of various documents, and to produce other documents
responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request. Subsequently, Plaintiff objected to the redactions
contained in the documents and argued that the FBI’s search was still inadequate. In response,
the FBI claimed that its redactions were appropriate and that it had not even been required to
produce these documents because they were not responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request. The FBI
sought reconsideration of the court’s previous determination that the FBI’s original search was
not reasonably calculated to locate responsive documents. In addition, the FBI requested a
determination that its manual search of five files, and the ZYIndex search of the OKBOMB file
fulfilled the FBI’s responsibilities to locate responsive documents under FOIA and that no further
search was required.
The court specifically stated in its March 29, 2006 Order that it declined to reconsider its
previous determination regarding the reasonableness of the FBI’s initial search and the need to
conduct additional manual searches. Moreover, the court ordered the FBI to conduct two more

2

limited searches in the OKBOMB file and noted that “it is troubling that so many of the
documents produced by the FBI refer to FD-302s that were or should have been prepared, and the
disclosed documents also refer to other attachments that at one time appear to have accompanied
the document, yet these documents have not been produced. While the FBI’s failure to discover
documents is not necessarily an indication of bad faith, it is puzzling that so many documents
could be referenced but not produced.” The court, however, declined to order further searches
beyond what the court had already specifically ordered.
The court had also noted in its May 5, 2005 Order that “[u]pon Motion, the court will
allow Plaintiff to conduct discovery should the FBI fail to produce documents and/or records
responsive to this FOIA requests.” In light of (1) the court’s previous finding that the FBI’s
original search was not reasonably calculated to locate responsive documents; (2) the troubling
absence of documents to which other documents referred; and (3) the information that Plaintiff
has thus far discovered from Terry Lynn Nichols and David Paul Hammer, the court is persuaded
that it continues to maintain jurisdiction over this action, and, furthermore, that by allowing the
requested depositions, Plaintiff may be better able to identify the existence of other records
responsive to his FOIA request that have not yet been produced.
Therefore, for these reasons and the reasons set forth by Plaintiff in his memorandum in
support and his reply memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion [docket
# 97] is GRANTED. The court notes that it is not compelling Nichols and Hammer to
cooperate; rather, the court is permitting Plaintiff to take–and videotape–the depositions, so long
as these individuals are willing to cooperate. In addition, the court is ordering the respective
3

federal correctional institutions to cooperate in allowing Plaintiff to take these depositions.
DATED this 20th day of September, 2007.
BY THE COURT:

DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge

4