Zaldivar #166954 v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs et al
Filing
68
ORDER The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 49 ). Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 49) is granted, and this action is terminated with prejudice. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/22/2016.(KMG)
1
2
MGD
WO
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Jose Adalberto Zaldivar, Sr.,
10
11
12
13
No. CV 14-01493-PHX-DGC (DMF)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
United States Department of Veterans
Affairs, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
Plaintiff Jose Adalberto Zaldivar, who is currently confined in the Arizona State
17
Prison Complex-Eyman, brought this case pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act
18
(FOIA) and the Privacy Act (PA). (Doc. 1.) Pending before the Court is a Motion for
19
Summary Judgment filed by the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office—
20
Phoenix (VARO) and the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of General Counsel
21
(OGC).1 (Doc. 49.) The Court will grant the Motion and terminate this action.
22
I.
Background2
23
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he submitted six FOIA/PA requests to the
24
VARO between 2002 and 2013, but that VARO failed to provide proper responses to
25
26
27
28
1
The Court provided notice to Plaintiff pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d
952, 962 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), regarding the requirements of a response. (Doc. 52.)
2
The full background of this action is set forth in the Court’s October 27, 2015
Order. (Doc. 34.)
1
these requests and the OGC denied an appeal filed by Plaintiff. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff also
2
alleged that the Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General (OIG) failed to respond to
3
his request for an appeals handbook. (Id.) On screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the
4
Court determined that Plaintiff stated a claim and directed the OIG, the VARO, and the
5
OGC to answer the claims in Counts One and Two of the Complaint, and dismissed the
6
remaining claims and Defendants. (Doc. 9.) Subsequently, the OIG filed a Motion to
7
Dismiss the claim against it for lack of jurisdiction (Doc. 20), and the VARO and the
8
OGC filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss three claims based on the statute of limitations
9
(Doc. 21).
10
On October 27, 2015, the Court granted both Motions to Dismiss, leaving only
11
two remaining claims against the VARO and the OGC: (1) Plaintiff’s April 26, 2012
12
FOIA/PA request in Count One, and (2) Plaintiff’s May 20, 2013 FOIA/PA request in
13
Count Two. (Doc. 34.) The VARO and the OGC now move for summary judgment on
14
the two remaining requests.
15
II.
Summary Judgment
16
A court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no
17
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
18
of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23
19
(1986).
20
responsibility of presenting the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the
21
record, together with affidavits, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine
22
issue of material fact. Id. at 323. If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the
23
burden then shifts to the opposing party who must demonstrate the existence of a material
24
factual dispute. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
25
III.
Under summary judgment practice, the moving party bears the initial
Discussion
26
Defendants argue that (1) Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies
27
with respect to the April 26, 2012 request, (2) the agency’s searches in response to both
28
-2-
1
requests were adequate, and (3) any redactions of the personal information of Plaintiff’s
2
former spouse in response to the May 30, 2013 request were proper. (Doc. 49.)
3
A.
4
5
6
7
8
April 26, 2012 Request
1.
Relevant Facts
By letter dated April 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a FOIA/PA request with the VARO
seeking the following information:
(1)
The application for VA compensation for Plaintiff’s “dependent spouse,”
referred to as an “application for apportionment”;
9
(2)
A VA letter by Ms. LaCenia dated April 3, 2012;
10
(3)
Correspondence in response to the application for apportionment;
11
(4)
The address of the OIG;
12
(5)
Notes, telephone calls, and inquiries regarding the application for
13
apportionment;
14
(6)
All documentation, applications, inquiries or requests made by letter or
15
telephone regarding Plaintiff’s VA compensation claim, including the names, addresses
16
and phone numbers of the requesting part(ies);
17
(7)
The names, addresses, and phone numbers of spouses and children entitled
18
to dependency and indemnity compensation.
19
(Doc. 51 (Defs.’ Statement of Facts (“DSOF”)) ¶ 1; Doc. 51-2 at 2-8.)3
20
The VARO received Plaintiff’s request on May 4, 2012 and responded on May 30,
21
2012 by sending Plaintiff a copy of his entire claims file. The VARO explained that it
22
did not include Plaintiff’s military service treatment records (STR) because those had
23
been provided to him on November 10, 2011 in response to a previous request. (Doc. 51
24
¶¶ 1, 2; Doc. 51-2 at 10.) The entire claims file and STR is over 3,000 pages, and,
25
according to the VARO’s FOIA/PA Officer, Marcelle Jeanisse, the VARO is the only
26
location at the VA where “one would reasonably expect to find documents responsive to
27
28
3
The citation refers to the document and page number generated by the Court’s
Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system.
-3-
1
Plaintiff’s April 26, 2012 request.” (Doc. 51 ¶¶ 2-3; Doc. 51-3 at 3 ¶ 11.) Plaintiff
2
received the VARO’s response, totaling 2,476 pages, on June 21, 2012. (Doc. 66 ¶ 2;
3
Doc. 65 ¶ 30.)
4
Before he received the VARO’s response, Plaintiff, by letter dated June 4, 2012,
5
filed an appeal with the VARO, asserting that he had not received any documents in
6
response to his April 26, 2012 request. (Doc. 51 ¶ 4; Doc. 51-2 at 12-24.) The VARO
7
noted on Plaintiff’s appeal letter that the FOIA request had already been completed and
8
took no further action on the appeal. (Id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff does not dispute that this notation
9
was made on his appeal but he denies “the validity of those reasons.” (Doc. 66 ¶ 6.)
10
By letter dated June 13, 2012, the Disabled American Veterans, acting as
11
Plaintiff’s designated representative, requested Plaintiff’s claims file “to include STR’s
12
and Apportionments.” (Doc. 51 ¶ 7; Doc. 51-2 at 26.) The VARO “Triage Team” that
13
processes incoming mail noted on the letter, “FOIA Request Complete 5/30/2012
14
Already!!,” and the VARO took no further action regarding the request. (Doc. 51 ¶ 8;
15
Doc. 51-2 at 26.)
16
2.
17
Exhaustion
a)
Legal Standard
18
FOIA requires that, upon receipt of a FOIA request, an administrative agency shall
19
“determine within 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) . . .
20
whether to comply with such request and shall immediately notify the person making
21
such request of such determination and the reasons therefor, and of the right of such
22
person to appeal to the head of the agency any adverse determination. . . .” 5 U.S.C.
23
§ 552(a)(6)(A)(i). Likewise, an agency must make a determination within 20 days of
24
receipt of an appeal. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii). If an agency does not respond to a
25
FOIA request within the applicable time period, the requester may file a lawsuit, but “this
26
option lasts only up to the point that an agency actually responds. Once the agency has
27
responded to the request, the petitioner may no longer exercise his option to go to court
28
immediately.
Rather, the requester can seek judicial review only after he has
-4-
1
unsuccessfully appealed to the head of the agency as to any denial and thereby exhausted
2
his administrative remedies.” Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 61 (D.C. Cir.
3
1990).
4
“Exhaustion of administrative remedies is generally required before filing suit in
5
federal court so that the agency has an opportunity to exercise its discretion and expertise
6
on the matter and to make a factual record to support its decision.” Oglesby, 920 F.2d at
7
61 (citing McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 194 (1969)). When administrative
8
remedies have not been exhausted prior to suit, a FOIA claim is subject to dismissal. See
9
Hidalgo v. FBI, 344 F.3d 1256, 1258 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (noting that an appeal made before
10
an agency has acted on a FOIA request deprives the agency of the “opportunity to
11
consider the very issues that [the plaintiff] has raised in court”).
12
b)
Analysis
13
Defendants argue that Plaintiff did not comply with VA regulations by filing a
14
proper appeal with the OGC within 60 days of an adverse determination, as required by
15
38 C.F.R. § 1.559(b) and (d). (Doc. 49 at 6.) Rather, Plaintiff filed a “premature appeal”
16
with the VARO, and he never filed a proper appeal with the OGC after receiving
17
VARO’s timely response to the April 26, 2012 request. (Id. at 6-7.)
18
Plaintiff responds that he constructively exhausted his administrative remedies by
19
filing a timely appeal to the VARO to the attention of “FOIA/Privacy Act Appeals
20
Officer” by letter dated June 4, 2012. (Doc. 64 at 10.) Plaintiff asserts that he was
21
unaware of 38 C.F.R. § 1.559 “due to circumstances beyond [his] control as to access to a
22
meaningful adequate law library,” and that he was using a 2008 version of the
23
regulations. (Id.; Doc. 65 at 7 ¶ 43(d).) As to VARO’s contention that it timely
24
responded to Plaintiff’s FOIA request on May 30, 2012, Plaintiff says the agency
25
responded by “flooding [him] with excessive documents without having to provide
26
specific documents requested in the April 26, 2012 FOIA/Privacy Act Request, especially
27
not having to answer to the phone conversation contact with VA Rep. Ms. LaCenia on
28
April 26, 2012.” (Id.)
-5-
1
There is no dispute that the VARO received Plaintiff’s FOIA request on May 4,
2
2012, and responded by letter dated May 30, 2012, less than 20 business days after
3
receiving the request, by providing Plaintiff with his entire claims file, minus the SRTs.
4
Thus, the VARO timely responded to Plaintiff’s FOIA request. Plaintiff’s attempted
5
appeal, claiming he did not receive a response, was filed before he received the VARO’s
6
response on June 21, 2012.4 (Doc. 51-2 at 12-14; Doc. 66 ¶ 2.) Plaintiff does not claim
7
that he filed any appeal challenging the adequacy of the VARO’s response after he
8
received it. By not filing an appeal on the VARO’s actual response, Plaintiff deprived
9
the agency of “an opportunity to exercise its discretion and expertise on the matter and to
10
make a factual record to support its decision.” Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 61.
11
Because Plaintiff did not file an appeal with respect to the VARO’s response to his
12
April 26, 2012 FOIA request, he did not exhaust his administrative remedies.
13
Accordingly, the Court will grant summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiff’s
14
April 26, 2012 request in Count One for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
15
16
17
3.
Adequacy of the Search
Alternatively, the Court will grant summary judgment to Defendants on the
adequacy of the VARO’s search for records in response to Plaintiff’s FOIA/PA request.
18
a)
Legal Standard
19
FOIA requires that an agency responding to a request “demonstrate that it has
20
conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” Lahr v.
21
Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F. 3d 964, 986 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Zemansky v. EPA,
22
767 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1985)). Such a showing can be made by “reasonably
23
detailed, nonconclusory affidavits submitted in good faith.” Zemansky, 767 F.2d at 571.
24
Such affidavits or declarations are entitled to “a presumption of good faith, which cannot
25
be rebutted by purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other
26
27
28
4
Plaintiff asserts in his Complaint that the VARO’s response is postmarked
June 1, 2012, and he appears to allege that his delay in receiving the response was due to
prison officials. (See Doc. 1 at 8-9.)
-6-
1
documents.”
2
Treasury, 534 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2008). An agency “need not set forth
3
with meticulous documentation the details of an epic search for the requested records.”
4
Id. (quotation omitted). “[T]he issue to be resolved is not whether there might exist any
5
other documents possibly responsive to the request, but rather whether the search for
6
those documents was adequate.” Citizens Comm’n on Human Rights v. FDA, 45 F.3d
7
1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1995) (quotation omitted) (emphasis in original). In general, the
8
sufficiency of a search is determined by the “appropriateness of the methods” used to
9
carry it out, “not by the fruits of the search.” Iturralde v. Comptroller of the Currency,
10
315 F.3d 311, 315 (D.C. Cir. 2003). The failure of an agency “to turn up a particular
11
document, or mere speculation that as yet uncovered documents might exist, does not
12
undermine the determination that the agency conducted an adequate search for the
13
requested records.” Wilbur v. CIA, 355 F.3d 675, 678 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
Lawyers’ Comm. for Civil Rights of S.F. Bay Area v. U.S. Dep’t of
14
Once a search has been conducted, FOIA requires disclosure unless the records
15
fall within one of nine narrow exemptions. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b); Minier v. CIA, 88 F.3d
16
796, 800 (9th Cir. 1996). These “limited exemptions do not obscure the basic policy that
17
disclosure, not secrecy, is the dominant objective of the Act.” Dep’t of Interior v.
18
Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 8 (2001) (internal citation omitted).
19
The exemptions “have been consistently given a narrow compass,” and agency records
20
that “do not fall within one of the exemptions are improperly withheld.” Dep’t of Justice
21
v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 151 (1989) (quotation omitted).
22
“To carry their summary judgment burden, agencies are typically required to
23
submit an index and ‘detailed public affidavits’ that, together, ‘identify [ ] the documents
24
withheld, the FOIA exemptions claimed, and a particularized explanation of why each
25
document falls within the claimed exemption.’” Yonemoto v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs,
26
686 F.3d 681, 688 (9th Cir. 2012). These submissions—commonly referred to as a
27
Vaughn index—“must be from affiants who are knowledgeable about the information
28
sought and detailed enough to allow the court to make an independent assessment of the
-7-
1
government’s claim of exemption.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). Whether by Vaughn
2
index or by affidavit or some combination of the two, the government must “provide
3
enough information, presented with sufficient detail, clarity, and verification, so that the
4
requester can fairly determine what has not been produced and why, and the court can
5
decide whether the exemptions claimed justify the nondisclosure.” Fiduccia v. U.S.
6
Dep’t. of Justice, 185 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th Cir. 1999). “To justify withholding, the
7
government must provide tailored reasons in response to a FOIA request. It may not
8
respond with boilerplate or conclusory statements.” Shannahan v. IRS, 672 F.3d 1142,
9
1148 (9th Cir. 2012).
10
Ultimately, the threshold issue on a motion for summary judgment is whether the
11
agency’s explanations are full and sufficiently specific to afford the FOIA requester a
12
meaningful opportunity to contest, and the district court an adequate foundation to
13
review, the soundness of the withholding. See Wiener v. FBI, 943 F.2d 972, 977-79 (9th
14
Cir. 1991) (noting that specificity is the defining requirement of the Vaughn index).
15
b)
Analysis
16
In his Declaration, FOIA/PA Officer Jeanisse explains that the VARO provided
17
Plaintiff “the entirety of his claims folder minus his” STRs, which were provided to
18
Plaintiff on November 20, 2011. (Doc. 51-3 at 3, ¶ 9.) Jeanisse avers that other than
19
Plaintiff’s claims file, “there is no other location in which one would reasonably expect to
20
find documents responsive to Plaintiff’s April 26, 2012 request.” (Id.)
21
Plaintiff responds that the VARO “assumes that there is no requirement that an
22
agency search all possible sources when it believes all responsive documents are likely to
23
be located in one place—Plaintiff’s ‘entire claim file.’” (Doc. 65 at 12.) Plaintiff
24
contends that his request was for specific documents, particularly a phone conversation
25
with Ms. LaCenia, and that specific document “was not included in the 2476 pages
26
Plaintiff was flooded with.” (Id.) Because this and other documents he sought were not
27
produced, Plaintiff argues that the VARO’s response was inadequate. (Id.)
28
-8-
1
Defendants have met their burden of showing that they conducted a search for
2
documents that was “reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents” by
3
presenting Jeanisse’s Declaration about where he conducted the search and that it is the
4
most likely location for documents responsive to Plaintiff’s request. See Lahr, 569 F. 3d
5
at 986; Zemansky, 767 F.2d at 571. Jeanisse states that Plaintiff’s entire claims file was
6
sent to Plaintiff, except for his STRs, which had been provided to Plaintiff previously.
7
(Doc. 51-3 at 3 ¶ 9.) Jeanisse does not assert that any documents were withheld from
8
Plaintiff or that the VARO claimed any exemptions. Jeanisse’s Declaration is entitled to
9
a presumption of good faith, and Plaintiff has not rebutted that presumption. Plaintiff
10
appears to speculate that other documents exist, but he has not shown how Jeanisse’s
11
search was inadequate or even that there were any other locations where responsive
12
documents might be found. Therefore, the Court finds that the VARO’s search for
13
records was adequate.
14
Iturralde, 315 F.3d at 315; Wilbur, 355 F.3d at 678. Accordingly, the Court will grant
15
summary judgment to Defendants on the adequacy of the search.
See Citizens Comm’n on Human Rights, 45 F.3d at 1328;
16
B.
17
Defendants argue that the search for records in response to Plaintiff’s May 20,
18
2013 request was adequate and that any redactions made to the documents produced were
19
permitted under FOIA and the PA.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
May 20, 2013 Request
1.
Relevant Facts
By letter dated May 20, 2013, which the VARO date stamped as received on
July 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed a FOIA/PA request seeking copies of the following:
(1)
A VA letter awarding benefits to Mrs. Zaldivar dated sometime before
June 27, 2002;
(2)
A letter from Mrs. Zaldivar to the VA from around or before January 10,
2002 regarding the reopening of her case;
27
28
-9-
1
2
(3)
A “Report of Contact,”5 VA Form 119, from Mrs. Zaldivar to the VARO
prior to April 19, 2002 regarding a letter from a bank;
3
(4)
The “law providing VA benefits”;
4
(5)
Mrs. Zaldivar’s Report of Contact to the VARO, attention “Chris,” dated
5
6
7
8
9
10
January 1, 2002, thanking someone for their “kind assistance on the phone today”;
(6)
A “financial status to re-open the request for apportionment that [Ms.
Zaldivar] filed in April”;
(7)
A Report of Contact, VA Form 119, regarding Mrs. Zaldivar’s letter to the
VARO dated December 26, 2001 in which she said she had called and requested a form;
(8)
A complete and unredacted copy of an e-mail provided on June 21, 2012
11
and “other e-mail and phone contact messages not previously released.”
12
(Doc. 51 ¶ 9; Doc. 51-2 at 28-33.)
13
When Plaintiff did not receive a response to his request, he filed an appeal with the
14
VARO by letter dated July 15, 2013, asserting that he construed the failure to respond as
15
“a denial of [his] good-faith effort to obtain the relevant documents.” (Doc. 51-2 at 35-
16
36.) The VARO did not respond to this appeal letter and decided to file it with Plaintiff’s
17
claim file because it was an “invalid NOD [Notice of Disagreement]” on a pending FOIA
18
request and so no action was necessary. (Doc. 51 ¶ 11.) Plaintiff states that his request
19
was “specifically written as an ‘appeal,’ not a Notice of Disagreement,” and the VARO
20
did not notify Plaintiff that they decided to take no action by filing it as a NOD letter.
21
(Doc. 65 at 9 ¶ 51.)
22
By letter dated December 18, 2014, Veterans Service Center Manager D. Luzi
23
responded to Plaintiff’s request. (Doc. 51-2 at 41-42.) According to Plaintiff, Luzi’s
24
response enclosed copies of the following:
25
26
(1)
An unredacted three-page letter dated September 15, 2001 from the VARO
to Plaintiff advising him that Mrs. Zaldivar had requested an apportionment;
27
28
5
Defendants explain that Reports of Contacts are internal VA forms in which VA
employees summarize conversations. (Doc. 51 ¶ 9(c).)
- 10 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
(2)
An unredacted three-page letter dated December 26, 2001 from Mrs.
Zaldivar containing a “Notice of Disagreement”;
(3)
An unredacted one-page letter dated April 24, 2001 from Mrs. Zaldivar to
the VARO “(Re: 345/Team 3)” requesting an application for apportionment;
(4)
A two-page letter dated September 15, 2001 from the VARO to Mrs.
Zaldivar, with her address redacted, requesting information and enclosing two forms;
(5)
A two-page letter dated December 21, 2001 from the VARO to Mrs.
Zaldivar, with her address redacted, denying a claim for apportionment;
(6)
A one-page letter dated January 10, 2002 from Mrs. Zaldivar to the VARO,
10
“Team 3/CM (Chris),” with her social security number redacted as well as information
11
below her signature and name;6
12
(7)
A two-page “Financial Status Report” dated June 11, 2002 and signed by
13
Mrs. Zaldivar with her social security number, address, telephone number, and names and
14
addresses of current and former employers redacted;7
15
16
17
(8)
An unredacted one-page letter dated April 4, 2002 from DM Federal Credit
Union to VA regarding a “joint owner of account”; and
(9)
One page of e-mails between Mrs. Zaldivar (with her e-mail address
18
redacted) and VA personnel between June 28, 2002 and March 31, 2003.
19
(Doc. 65 at 9-10; Doc. 65-4 at 21 to Doc. 65-5 at 8.)
20
The December 18, 2014 response stated that under the PA and FOIA Exemption
21
(b)(6), the agency could not provide Rebecca J. Zaldivar’s personal information such as
22
her address, social security number, and telephone number because such disclosure
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Defendants assert that the redacted information below Mrs. Zaldivar’s signature
cannot be described because only a redacted copy exists in the VA files. (Doc. 51
¶ 12(f).) Plaintiff responds that this letter “in its entirety was disclosed in the VARO’s
May 30, 2012 release of records. (Doc. 65 at 10, citing Ex. R (Doc. 65-4 at 4).)
7
Plaintiff asserts that this same document was released “in its entirety” with the
May 30, 2012 disclosure from the VARO. (Doc. 65 at 10, citing Ex. S (Doc. 65-4 at 1115.)
- 11 -
1
“would be an unwarranted invasion of her personal privacy” and so the information was
2
withheld. (Doc. 51-2 at 41.)
3
By letter dated January 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Appeal with the OGC.
4
(Doc. 51 ¶ 19; Doc. 51-2 at 44-47.) Plaintiff’s letter stated that he was appealing the
5
response to his May 20, 2013 request and the “July 15, 2013 Appeal due to the untimely
6
response.”
7
determination in its entirety of December 18, 2014 from D. Luzi” because the documents
8
VARO produced had been released previously and were not new or the ones he
9
requested. (Id.) Plaintiff asserted that he “was very specific as to the documents being
10
sought” and “since no specific documents requested nor the regulations talked about, in
11
state civil proceedings by Ms. Rebecca Zaldivar and her attorney were provided, I will
12
continue my request through the civil complaint filed with the U.S. District Courts.” (Id.
13
at 45-46.)
14
documents released, that Mrs. Zaldivar’s letter does not satisfy his request for a Report of
15
Contact, that her personal information such as her social security number and telephone
16
number are a matter of public record and were “supplied by Ms. Rebecca Zaldivar as an
17
adverse party to various court proceedings,” and that the “disclosure of documents
18
submitted by Rebecca Zaldivar are strictly for impeachment purposes as they relate to
19
subject matter of any direct testimony given by her in civil court (state) proceedings.”
20
(Id. at 46-47.)
(Doc. 51-2 at 45.)
Plaintiff also said he was appealing “the adverse
Plaintiff said that one page of a two-page email was missing from the
21
On April 20, 2015, the OGC issued its Final Agency Decision in response to
22
Plaintiff’s appeal. (Doc. 51-2 at 59-63.) The OGC Decision noted that the FOIA Officer
23
who conducted the search did not locate any Reports of Contact with the subject matters
24
described by Plaintiff, but “in an attempt to be as responsive as possible, the FOIA
25
Officer located the above-referenced documents disclosed to you which disclosures of
26
information were closely related to the subjects of your requests.” (Id. at 61.) The
27
Decision described the FOIA Officer’s search of “thousands of pages of records” in
28
Plaintiff’s file, including a page-by-page search that took long hours to conduct, but still
- 12 -
1
no Reports of Contacts as described by Plaintiff were located. (Id. at 62.) The Decision
2
affirmed the determination that “there are no other records located within the Phoenix
3
VARO responsive to your request.” (Id.)
4
As to the exemptions claimed by the VARO, the Decision states that Mrs.
5
Zaldivar’s social security number was properly withheld under FOIA Exemptions (b)(3)
6
and (b)(6) and 38 U.S.C. § 5701, and that her physical and email addresses, telephone
7
number, and names and locations of her current and former employe[r]s” were properly
8
withheld under FOIA Exemption (b)(6). (Id. at 62.) The OGC also found that the
9
information withheld under the PA was “about Mrs. Zaldivar and pertains only to her,”
10
and that an agency “cannot disclose any record which is contained in a Privacy Act-
11
protected file to any person except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior
12
written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless one of twelve
13
exceptions applies (5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(1)-(1)).” (Id. at 63.)
14
As to Plaintiff’s July 15, 2013 appeal letter to VARO, OGC advised Plaintiff that
15
“pursuant to VA regulations, the [OGC] is the only appellate authority for FOIA and
16
Privacy Act appeals (38 C.F.R. 1.559(b)).” (Id. at 60.)
17
2.
Adequacy of the Search
18
In his Declaration, Jeanisse describes the search he conducted in response to
19
Plaintiff’s May 20, 2013 FOIA request, the documents sent to Plaintiff, and the
20
information redacted. (Doc. 51-3 at 1-7.) Jeanisse states that he did “a page-by-page
21
review of Plaintiff’s entire claims file with the VA, which encompassed thousands of
22
pages of records” and took many hours. (Id. at 6 ¶ 22.) Jeanisse further avers that “other
23
than [Plaintiff’s] claims file, there is no other location in which one would reasonably
24
expect to find documents responsive to Plaintiff’s May 20, 2013 request.” (Id.) Jeanisse
25
asserts that he was not able to locate all of the specific documents Plaintiff requested but
26
tried to be as responsive as possible, and so disclosed several documents that “were
27
closely related to the specific documents requested.” (Id.) Jeanisse also prepared a two-
28
page Vaughn Index describing the information redacted and the FOIA and Privacy Act
- 13 -
1
exemptions that allow the withholding of that information. (Id. ¶ 23; Doc. 51-4 at 1-2.)
2
According to Jeanisse, “[t]hese were the only matters withheld from Plaintiff in response
3
to this request.” (Doc. 51-3 ¶ 23.)
4
Defendants argue that the search for documents in this case “was diligent and was
5
conducted using the only location that could reasonably be expected to contain the
6
requested documents.” (Doc. 49 at 10.) Although Plaintiff asserted in his appeal to the
7
OGC that documents exist that were not found during the VARO’s search, Defendants
8
argue that the standard is whether the search conducted was adequate, “‘not whether
9
responsive documents might possibly exist.’”
10
(Id., quoting Citizens Against UFO
Secrecy, Inc. v. DOD, 21 Fed. App’x 774, 775 (9th Cir. 2001).)
11
Plaintiff responds that his request “stems from a divorce hearing based on
12
Plaintiff[’s] ex-spouse attempting to force funds from Plaintiff (Exhibit Z) after his
13
conviction but before he was sentenced.” (Doc. 65 at 12.) Plaintiff asserts that the
14
“closely related documents” provided by the VARO do not fulfill his FOIA/Privacy Act
15
request and that the VARO’s search for responsive records “remain[s] elusive.” (Doc. 64
16
at 12.) Plaintiff contends that the “VARO’s release of documents dated May 30, 2013
17
revealed three contact notes” from June 7, 2001, June 30, 2001 and April 24, 2002, yet
18
the “VARO claims none exist.” (Doc. 64 at 12-13, citing Doc. 65-6 at 23, 25 and 27.)
19
Plaintiff states that he “merely seeks the disclosure of information and documents
20
relevant to the testimony of Ms. Zaldivar in civil and criminal trial hearings.” (Id. at 13,
21
citing Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 82, n.23 (D.C. Cir. 1973).)
22
Plaintiff appears to challenge the adequacy of the search for documents responsive
23
to his May 20, 2013 request, but only obliquely. Plaintiff argues that the “closely related
24
documents” do not fulfill his request, but that does not demonstrate that the VARO’s
25
search for records was inadequate. Plaintiff cites to three Reports of Contact that he says
26
VARO disclosed to him “by letter dated May 30, 2013,”8 but he does not explain why
27
28
8
There is no VARO letter dated May 30, 2013 in the record, and it is possible
Plaintiff meant that VARO provided these documents in its May 30, 2012 response to his
- 14 -
1
these three documents are significant. Plaintiff’s May 20, 2013 request sought three
2
Reports of Contact with Mrs. Zaldivar dated December 26, 2001, January 1, 2002 and
3
sometime prior to April 19, 2002, but VARO did not locate those documents. The three
4
Reports of Contact Plaintiff says were previously disclosed are dated June 7, 2001,
5
June 30, 2001, and April 24, 2002, and do not appear to be the documents he sought in
6
his May 20, 2013 request. Therefore, it is not clear if Plaintiff is arguing that because
7
three Reports of Contact were released to him, there must be others, or if he is arguing
8
something else altogether. Nevertheless, the prior release of Reports of Contacts does not
9
support that VARO’s search was inadequate.
10
Defendants have met their burden of showing that they conducted a search for
11
documents that was “reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents” by
12
presenting Jeanisse’s Declaration about where he conducted the search and the methods
13
he used. See Lahr, 569 F. 3d at 986; Zemansky, 767 F.2d at 571. Jeanisse’s Declaration
14
is entitled to a presumption of good faith, and Plaintiff has not rebutted that presumption.
15
Plaintiff appears to speculate that other documents exist, but he has not shown or even
16
argued how Jeanisse’s search was inadequate. Therefore, the Court finds that VARO’s
17
search for records was adequate. See Citizens Comm’n on Human Rights, 45 F.3d at
18
1328; Iturralde, 315 F.3d at 315; Wilbur, 355 F.3d at 678. Accordingly, the Court will
19
grant summary judgment to Defendants on the adequacy of the search.
20
21
22
23
3.
Exemptions
VARO argues that it properly redacted certain information about Plaintiff’s former
wife pursuant to FOIA Exemption (b)(6) and the PA. (Doc. 49 at 10-11.)
a)
24
FOIA Exemption (b)(6)
(1)
Legal Standard
25
FOIA Exemption (b)(6) exempts “personnel and medical files and similar files the
26
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
27
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6).
To determine whether a record is properly withheld under
28
April 26, 2012 request.
- 15 -
1
Exemption (b)(6), the court “must balance the privacy interest protected by the
2
exemptions against the public interest in government openness that would be served by
3
disclosure.” Lahr, 569 F.3d at 973. Exemption (b)(6) “requires that the invasion of
4
privacy be ‘clearly unwarranted’” and that disclosing the information “‘would constitute’
5
an unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Id. (quoting U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Reporters
6
Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 755-56 (1989)). When the government
7
“has identified a cognizable privacy interest, ‘the only relevant public interest in the
8
FOIA balancing analysis is the extent to which disclosure of the information sought
9
would shed light on an agency’s performance of its statutory duties or otherwise let
10
citizens know what their government is up to.’” Id. (quoting Bibles v. Or. Natural Desert
11
Ass’n, 519 U.S. 355, 355-56 (1997)).
12
(2)
Analysis
13
Defendants assert that the only information redacted by the VARO under
14
Exemption (b)(6) is the “private contact information of Plaintiff’s ex-spouse and her
15
social security number.” (Doc. 59 at 13, citing Vaughn Index.) They argue that “this is
16
wholly private information and sheds no light on the VA’s conduct.” (Id.)
17
Plaintiff responds that “any redaction of the personal information of Plaintiff’s ex-
18
spouse has been waived.” (Doc. 64 at 13.) Plaintiff asserts that the “VARO voluntarily
19
surrendered documents in its May 30, 2012 disclosure in its entirety, without redactions,
20
as clean copies” and that Mrs. Zaldivar “has also released documents on her own behalf
21
as exhibits when the need arises.” (Id. at 13-14, citing Doc. 65 ¶¶ 30, 52 and Exs. H, P-
22
S.) Plaintiff does not say specifically what information has previously been released, but
23
argues that Mrs. Zaldivar “has never exercised her right to privacy or confidentiality nor
24
has VARO produced such document on record,” and so Mrs. Zaldivar “has waived her
25
right to non-disclosure under the Privacy Act.” (Id. at 14.)
26
Plaintiff has not identified what public interest would be served by the disclosure
27
of Mrs. Zaldivar’s contact information and social security number. Even assuming Mrs.
28
Zaldivar had disclosed the information in some other proceeding or the agency did not
- 16 -
1
assert the exemption in a prior release of records, such disclosure still fails to shed light
2
on how the agency performed its statutory duties in Plaintiff’s case. See, e.g., Fiduccia,
3
185 F.3d at 1047 (holding that the privacy interests of the individuals involved
4
outweighed the FOIA purpose of disclosure even though the information may have been
5
disclosed in “various courthouses”). Nor does Plaintiff’s citation to an Eighth Circuit
6
case discussing FOIA Exemption (b)(5) compel disclosure of the information withheld by
7
VARO under Exemption (b)(6). See North Dakota v. Andrus, 581 F.2d 177 (8th Cir.
8
1978) (holding that the government waived its right to assert Exemption (b)(5), which
9
exempts from disclosure certain “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters,”
10
because the government had previously disclosed the documents to counsel in a separate
11
litigation). The Andrus case involved the government’s waiver of its own right to assert
12
Exemption (b)(5), whereas here the government is asserting Exemption (b)(6) as to the
13
disclosure of Mrs. Zaldivar’s information. Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff claims he has
14
already received the documents he is complaining were not disclosed in their entirety, his
15
request for records would be moot.
16
17
18
19
Accordingly, the Court will grant summary judgment to Defendants on claimed
FOIA Exemption (b)(6).
b)
Privacy Act Exemption
(1)
Legal Standard
20
The Privacy Act governs the disclosure of, access to, and amendment of records
21
on individuals that are maintained by federal agencies.” Lane v. Dep’t of Interior, 523
22
F.3d 1128, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552a). Thus, “an individual may
23
‘gain access to his [or her] record’ upon request, id. § 552a(d)(1), and a cause of action
24
arises if an agency refuses to comply with a request, id. § 552a(g)(1)(B).” Id. at 1139.
25
On the other hand, the PA prohibits disclosure of “any record” to any person or agency
26
unless there is a written request by or written consent of the individual to whom the
27
record pertains,” subject to certain exceptions. Id. The government “need not show that
28
it produced every responsive document, but only that the search for those documents was
- 17 -
1
adequate.”
2
government may show that its search was adequate by providing “reasonably detailed,
3
nonconclusory affidavits submitted in good faith.” Zemansky, 767 F.2d at 571 (quoting
4
Weisberg v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984)).
5
Id. (quoting Zemansky, 767 F.2d at 571) (emphasis in original).
(2)
The
Analysis
6
Defendants argue that the information Plaintiff claims he should have access to—
7
the redacted contact information and social security number of his ex-spouse—“are not
8
records pertaining to [Plaintiff],” even if the information can be found in his claim file.
9
(Doc. 49 at 14.) They assert that Plaintiff’s “filings alone demonstrates his desire to
10
retaliate against his ex-spouse since being convicted of numerous counts of sexual abuse
11
and sexual contact with a minor in a proceeding where his ex-spouse was the ‘key
12
prosecution witness.’” (Id., citing Doc. 51 ¶ 21, Doc. 51-2 at 65-66, Doc. 1 ¶ 20.)
13
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s situation “is on all fours” with the situation in
14
DePlanche v. Califano, 549 F. Supp. 685, 693-98 (W.D. Mich. 1982), a case in which a
15
father sought access to a social security benefits file accessible by the father’s social
16
security number that contained the address of his minor children.
17
DePlanche denied access to the address, finding that the information was not the father’s
18
record within subsection (a)(4) or information pertaining to him under subsection (d)(1)
19
of the Privacy Act. Id. at 694-96.
The court in
20
Plaintiff responds generally that his former wife “has waived right to non-
21
disclosure under the Privacy Act and VARO’s release of documents surrendered
22
documents as clean copies makes VARO’s rights waived as well in protecting the
23
information.” (Doc. 64 at 13-14.) Plaintiff does not argue that the information withheld
24
under the PA pertains to him and not to his wife, or that she has consented to such
25
disclosure. The Court accordingly will grant summary judgment to Defendants on the
26
withholding of the information relating to Plaintiff’s former spouse under the Privacy
27
Act.
28
///
- 18 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
IT IS ORDERED:
(1)
The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 49).
(2)
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 49) is granted, and this
action is terminated with prejudice. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 22nd day of August, 2016.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 19 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?