Maria Smith Barragan v. Board of Governors of The Federal Reserve System et al

Filing 20

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Expedited Jurisdictional Discovery 15 is DENIED. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 11-696 CAS (JCx)

Title

MARIA SMITH BARRAGAN v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

April 13, 2012

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

CATHERINE JEANG
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

I.

(In Chambers:) PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR EXPEDITED JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY (filed
4/3/2012)

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

On April 20, 2009, plaintiff Maria Smith Barragan filed a putative class action in
Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that East West Bank and its officers aided
and abetted a Ponzi scheme. Compl. ¶ 11. On September 26, 2010, plaintiffs’ counsel
submitted a Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A) (“FOIA”), request with
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Fed”). Id. ¶ 14. The request
sought all “Suspicious Activity Reports filed by East West Bank related to [the Ponzischeme perpetrators].” Id. ¶ 14. On September 30, 2010, the Fed denied the request.
Id. ¶ 15. A subsequent appeal and request for discretionary release were also denied. Id.
¶ 17–19.
Accordingly, on May 5, 2011, plaintiff filed the instant action against the Fed
seeking an order requiring the Fed to turn over the requested records. Id. ¶ 37. Plaintiff’s
complaint seeks (1) declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and (2)
production of records improperly withheld and with attorneys’ fees pursuant to FOIA.
On March 7, 2012, defendant filed a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction on the ground that plaintiff lacks standing to bring the instant action
because she did not personally file the FOIA request at issue. Dkt. No. 11-1 at 6. On
April 3, 2012, plaintiff filed the instant ex parte application for expedited jurisdictional
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 11-696 CAS (JCx)

Date

April 13, 2012

Title

MARIA SMITH BARRAGAN v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, ET AL.

discovery in order to determine plaintiff’s standing. On April 6, 2012, defendant filed its
opposition.
II.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues that jurisdictional discovery is warranted because defendant’s
affidavits lack essential information necessary to determine plaintiff’s standing. Mot. at
4–5. Additionally, plaintiff contends that jurisdictional discovery will show that plaintiff
was the true party in interest to the FOIA request. Id. at 6.
In opposition, defendant argues that no discovery plaintiff can conduct will “shed
light on whether the FOIA request was filed by the plaintiff’s attorney, rather than the
plaintiff, the issue upon which the Court’s jurisdiction depends.” Opp’n at 4.
The Court finds that plaintiff’s request should be denied. “[C]ourts have found
that an attorney must adequately identify that he is making the FOIA request for his client
in order for the client to have standing to pursue a FOIA action.” Three Forks Ranch
Corp. v. Bureau of Land Management, Little Snake Field Office, 358 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3 (D.
D.C. 2005). Here, the complaint alleges that “counsel for the victim investors
electronically submitted a [FOIA] request with the Fed.” Compl. ¶ 14 (emphasis added).
It does not allege that this request was made on behalf of plaintiff. Further, the Fed’s
denials of the FOIA request made in connection with the state court action are all
addressed to plaintiff’s attorney. See Compl. Exh. C. Accordingly, jurisdictional
discovery is unnecessary to ascertain the plain fact that plaintiff’s counsel—and not
plaintiff—submitted the FOIA request. Cf. Three Forks, 358 F. Supp. 2d at 3; Thome v.
United States Food and Drug Admin, 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 81985, at *5 n.9 (N.D. Cal.
Jul. 27, 2011) (“[A] client who was not identified in a FOIA request that was made by the
client’s attorney lack[s] standing [to sue].”). See also Lane v. United States Dep’t of
Interior, 523 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that courts have “wide latitude” in
controlling discovery in FOIA cases).
///
///
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 11-696 CAS (JCx)

Date

April 13, 2012

Title

MARIA SMITH BARRAGAN v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s ex parte application for expedited jurisdictional discovery is therefore
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 3 of 3