Schulze v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al
Filing
151
ORDER GRANTING 131 Motion for Reconsideration ; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 133 Motion for Instructive Order ; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 142 Motion to Compel, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/28/15. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MICHAEL F. SCHULZE.,
10
Plaintiff,
vs.
11
12
13
14
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
DRUG ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES
MARSHALS SERVICE and DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE,
15
1:05-cv-00180-AWI-GSA
ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF
DEFENDANT DRUG ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S
ORDER OF OCTOBER 29, 2014;
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR INSTRUCTIVE ORDER
AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
Defendants.
16
Doc. #’s 131, 133, & 142
17
18
On October 29, 2014, the court issued an order denying without prejudice the motions of
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
defendants United States Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) and Federal Bureau of
Investigation (“FBI”) for summary judgment as to all claims by plaintiff Michael Schultz
(“Plaintiff”) (the “October 29 Order”). Both DEA and FBI had moved for summary judgement
on the ground that the documents requested by Plaintiff were protected from disclosure by
statutory exemptions pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). The motions for
summary judgment by DEA and FBI were denied without prejudice as premature and both
parties were ordered to produce Vaughn indexes. In so ordering, the court overlooked the fact
that DEA had also moved for summary judgment on the alternative ground that Plaintiff
expressed no willingness to pay the fees for production of documents estimated by DEA
A
1
2
3
4
5
pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.1. On December 10, 2014, DEA moved for reconsideration of the
court’s October 29 Order as to it only on the ground Plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative
claims by failing to indicate willingness to pay the estimated fees. For the reasons that follow,
DEA’s motion for reconsideration will be granted.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
6
The general factual background of this case has been reviewed previously and need not
7
8
9
be repeated here. The following are facts alleged by DEA that pertain only to the issue of fee
requirements associated with Plaintiff’s FOIA request to DEA.
Defendant DEA alleges it:
10
. . . commenced its search of the [IRFS] files by querying under OIaes’
and Ahlo’s identifiers, and located potentially responsive investigation
files. [. . . .] It then estimated the total search time needed, including
searching those files manually for the particular records in them that
pertain to Olaes or Ahlo. At the standard hourly rate ($28.00), the
estimated search cost was $8,400.00. [. . . .] DEA wrote [P]laintiff with
the fee amount and requested payment. [. . . .] DEA said that it would be
“presumed that you do not wish to pay the fees to conduct the search of
IRFS files” if response was not received within 30 days. [. . . .] Plaintiff
returned the letter to DEA and expressed unwillingness to pay the fees,
giving as his reasons the fact that DEA had already “located his
potentially responsive files” and the non sequitur that DEA had already
“processed my request.” [. . . .] Although Plaintiff was given 30 days to
express willingness to pay, he has not done so.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Doc. # 114 at 26:4-15.
19
LEGAL STANDARD
20
Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on
21
22
grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3) fraud . . . of an
23
adverse party, . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.”
24
The motion for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time, in any event “not more
25
than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id. Motions to
26
reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825
27
F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc).
28
-2A
1
2
To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court
to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., Kern Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634
3
4
5
F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514
(9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015, 108 S.Ct. 1752, 100 L.Ed.2d 214 (1988).
DISCUSSION
6
7
I. Issue to be Determined
8
9
Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling the production of a Vaughn index from DEA,
Document Number 142, presents the issue of whether DEA waived the right to assert the defense
10
of failure to exhaust administrative remedies based on failure to pay the estimated processing
11
12
fees because the issue was not raised during the administrative process. Plaintiff cites Friends of
13
the Coast Fork v. U.S. Dept. Interior, 110 F.3d 53 (9th Cir. 1997), among others, for the
14
proposition that a district court may not consider arguments that are raised by the agency before
15
the district court that were not raised during the administrative process. See id. at 55 (“the
16
agency must stand on whatever reasons for denial it gave in the administrative proceeding”). In
17
his motion to compel, Plaintiff alleges “[t]o be sure, at no point during the administrative process
18
did [D]efendant DEA request a payment from [Plaintiff], nor was it ever cited as a reason for
19
20
denying his FOIA requests.” Doc. # 142 at 6.
The proposition asserted by Plaintiff through his reliance on the Ninth Circuit’s holding
21
22
in Friends of the Coast Fork originated in a pair of Supreme Court decisions; SEC v. Chenery
23
Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943) (“Chenery I”) and SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947)
24
(“Chenery II”). In Chenery I, the Court prohibited courts reviewing agency decisions from
25
supplying any determination that the agency was solely empowered to make but which the
26
27
28
agency did not make. Chenery I 318 U.S. at 88 (“If an order is valid only as a determination of
policy or judgment which the agency alone is authorized to make and which it has not made, a
-3A
1
2
judicial judgment cannot be made to do service for an administrative judgment.”) In the second
decision the Supreme Court clarifies the first by holding that when a court reviews an agency
3
4
5
decision that the agency alone is empowered to make, the court “must judge the propriety of
such action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency.” Chnery II, 332 U.S. at 196. The
6
shorthand for the holdings in this pair of cases is the prohibition against “post-hoc
7
rationalization.” See Louis v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 419 F.3d 970, 978 (9th Cir. 2005) (using the
8
term to describe the application of Chenery I and Chenery II in Friends of the Coast Fork, 110
9
F.3d 53).
10
As Plaintiff correctly notes, the refusal of DEA to provide documents responsive to
11
12
Plaintiff’s FOIA request on the ground Plaintiff refused to pay the estimated costs of production
13
first appeared in a letter from DEA to Plaintiff dated June 18, 2012; approximately seven years
14
and four months after the institution of this action. See Doc. # 114-4. Also, Plaintiff correctly
15
notes that his initial requests to DEA for information pertaining to Olaes was denied by DEA for
16
the first time on October 1, 2004, and on administrative appeal on December 27, 2004. Neither
17
18
the original denial nor the denial on administrative appeal mentioned Plaintiff’s failure to pay
estimated fees. Plaintiff’s FOIA request to DEA with regard to Ahlo was denied and the
19
20
administrative appeal was denied on the approximately the same dates – that is, approximately
21
seven years before the 2012 letter explaining DEA’s refusal to produce documents in the
22
absence of Plaintiff’s commitment to pay estimated fees.
23
The initial and fundamental problem with DEA’s motion for reconsideration and with
24
Plaintiff’s response to it is that both mischaracterize the issue that is properly before the court.
25
For reasons that will be explained, DEA’s characterization of its grounds for summary judgment
26
27
28
as “failure to exhaust administrative remedies” misses the mark as does Plaintiff’s
characterization of DEA’s grounds as a post-hoc rationalization of a prior final denial.
-4A
1
2
The fee provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A) do not specify a particular point in the
process where fees are to be calculated and the requestor is required to either pay the fee or
3
4
5
apply for waiver. Certainly an agency cannot be required to establish an estimated fee where the
extent of its obligation to respond is being challenged. In this case, it cannot be held that DEA
6
was obliged to estimate fees where it had made the initial determination that Plaintiff’s FOIA
7
requests for Oales and Alho failed to adequately state a request to which DEA could respond.
8
It is significant that DEA as well as FBI maintained a consistent position that they were not
9
obliged to “confirm or deny” the existence of documents in their possession that were responsive
10
to Plaintiff’s FOIA request up until the court’s memorandum of July 22, 2010, denying without
11
12
prejudice Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. Doc. # 86. Up to that
13
point, it is reasonable the DEA would not have brought up the issue of fees because there was no
14
basis to expect that production of documents would be required.
Although the court did not use the term “Vaughn index” in its July 22 memorandum, the
15
16
17
18
court did make clear that DEA’s reliance on FOIA exemptions requires record-specific reasons
for application of the exemptions claimed. See Doc. # 86 at 36:3-12. Due to continuances
requested by both parties, the court did not address Defendants’ motion to dismiss filed on
19
20
September 13, 2010, until July of 2012. In the intervening time, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in
21
Pickard v. Dep’t of Justice, 653 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 2011) had been published and it became clear
22
to DEA and FBI that a Vaughn index would be required in order to justify the application of
23
FOIA exemptions or exclusions to documents responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request. It was not
24
25
until this time that DEA had reason to know that it would be required to do actual research to
find documents responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request and therefore that the requirement for
26
27
payment of estimated fees would become applicable.
Plaintiff’s first error, therefore, is to characterize DEA’s 2004 letters denying Plaintiff’s
28
-5A
1
2
FOIA requests as to Alho and Olaes as “final denials” of Plaintiff’s FOIA requests and his
characterization of the June 18, 2012, letter as a second “final denial” on different grounds. The
3
4
5
DEA’s 2004 letters were notifications that DEA would do no further work on Plaintiff’s FOIA
requests as submitted, but were also notifications that DEA would proceed with the FOIA
6
requests if the deficiencies noted by DEA were corrected. Similarly, DEA’s letter of June 18,
7
2012, is not a second letter of denial, it is a further notice of deficiencies in Plaintiff’s FOIA
8
requests because of defects in the descriptions of the documents requested, and a notice that if
9
the deficiencies were corrected, DEA would proceed to search for and process responsive
10
documents upon payment of the estimated fee. So far as this court is aware, Plaintiff has never
11
12
received a “final” denial of his FOIA requests; the only “final” determination to date is the
13
denial of Plaintiff’s implied application for waiver of fees. Therefore, the issue properly before
14
the court is not whether DEA is entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff failed to exhaust
15
administrative remedies; it is whether DEA properly denied Plaintiff’s application for waiver of
16
fees. So far as the court can determine, that issue was administratively exhausted and is the crux
17
of Plaintiff’s motion to compel DEA to produce a Vaughn index. It is to that issue the court
18
directs its attention.
19
20
II. DEA Properly Denied Waiver of Fees as to FOIA Requests for Ahlo and Olaes
21
To offset the cost of fulfilling document requests, FOIA authorizes
agencies to collect processing fees. [5 U.S.C.] § 552(a)(4). There are
three basic types of fees: “”search” fees to cover the cost of agency
personnel time spent locating the requested documents, “review” fees to
cover the cost of personnel time spent determining whether any requested
documents are exempt from disclosure, and “duplication” fees to recover
the cost of actual duplication as well as any personnel time spent in the
duplication process. 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(b), (c). When records are
“requested for commercial use,” an agency may, in accord with its own
regulations, assess search, review and duplication fees. 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(4)(A)(iii)(I). When records are “not sought for commercial use
and the request is made by an educational or noncommercial scientific
institution . . . or a representative of the news media,” the agency may
collect only duplication fees, not search or review fees. Id. §
552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II). Any other requests for noncommercial use are
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6A
1
subject to both search and duplication fees, but not review fees. Id. §
552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(III).
2
Notwithstanding the foregoing fee assessment criteria, FOIA requests
must be processed “without any charge or at a charge reduced below” the
agency’s established fee schedule “if disclosure of the information is in
the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public
understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not
primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” Id. §
552(a)(4)(A)(iii). If no fee waiver applies, an agency may require
prepayment before beginning to process a request if “the agency has
determined that the fee will exceed $250. Id. § 552(a)(4)(A)(v). If the
requester refuses to prepay these fees, “the request shall not be considered
received and further work will not be done on it until the required
payment is received.” 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(i)(4).
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Coleman v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 714 F.3d 816, 819 (4th Cir. 2013).
10
In this case there is no dispute that DEA estimated the total of applicable fees would be
11
12
13
in excess of $2,000 and requested that Plaintiff pay the fees, or promise to pay the fees, in
advance. Plaintiff has not disputed that he declined to pay or promise to pay DEA the requested
14
fees. As a consequence, DEA is justified in declining to do further work to prepare documents
15
responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request and in declining to provide any information responsive to
16
Plaintiff’s request unless Plaintiff’s FOIA request falls within the category of requests “likely to
17
18
contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the
government.”
19
Plaintiff’s purposes in making his FOIA requests are explained in the affidavit attached
20
21
to his amended complaint. See generally Doc. # 11 at 21-31. In his affidavit, Plaintiff alleges
22
the purposes with regard to his FOIA requests as to the subjects Olaes and Alho. With regard to
23
Olaes, Plaintiff’s affidavit alleges that US Attorney Sorenson was informed that Olaes “(1) stole
24
various amounts of drug from each [FBI or DEA directed drug] purchase prior to turning it over
25
to the FBI; (2) purchased methamphetamine on a weekly basis from an undisclosed source; (3)
26
obtained methamphetamine on a number of occasions from his targets for further distribution
27
28
without informing the FBI; (4) smoked methamphetamine throughout his entire participation;
-7A
1
2
and (5) lied to federal investigators.” Doc. # 11 at ¶ 20. Plaintiff alleges his trial began with a
statement by US Attorney Sorenson told the jury that Plaintiff “had been a target of a DEA
3
4
5
investigation since September of 1999, after being implicated of [sic] involvement in drug
trafficking following the arrest and conviction of a Donald Grimm.” Doc. # 11 at ¶22.
Plaintiff states that with regard to DEA, the purpose of making the FOIA requests with
6
7
regard to Olaes is to gain evidence to challenge Sorensen’s allegedly prejudicial statement
8
regarding Plaintiff’s status as the subject of a DEA investigation since 1999. As far as the court
9
can discern from Plaintiff’s affidavit, Plaintiff’s only reason for seeking information regarding
10
Alho from DEA is to show that Alho functioned as a paid informant for both FBI and DEA.
11
12
Overall, Plaintiff’s affidavit makes a number of accusations regarding the relationship between
13
FBI and Olaes and FBI and Alho. Plaintiff characterizes these relationships as reflecting
14
governmental corruption which Plaintiff hopes to evince by retrieving documents through FOIA
15
that show the profiting of individual FBI agents from seized property, the profiting of informants
16
through the governmental practice of paying for information provided, and collusion between
17
18
the state law enforcement agencies and the FBI to further the scheme of corruption. However,
Plaintiff’s explanation of his purposes in obtaining information from DEA are devoid of any
19
20
21
accusation of agency misconduct other than the misconduct suggested by the practice of
rewarding informants for their cooperation.
Thus, while Plaintiff’s affidavit arguably states a basis for public interest in the
22
23
relationship of either Alho or Olaes to FBI, the court can find nothing that could arguably fit
24
within the realm of public interest with regard to Plaintiff’s FOIA request to DEA. Plaintiff’s
25
averments that either or both Alho or Olaes functioned as paid informants to DEA is not a matter
26
27
28
of public interest inasmuch as the allegation represents nothing more than a specific instance of
an allegedly general practice. Similarly, whether Sorenson’s statement that Plaintiff had been
-8A
1
2
the subject of DEA investigation for a substantial period of time is either false or prejudicial is
not a matter of public interest; it is a matter of interest to Plaintiff and his defense only. It is
3
4
5
therefore this court’s conclusion that, with regard to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests to DEA, Plaintiff
has failed to show that his FOIA request to DEA qualifies for waiver of applicable fees.
6
Because the waiver provisions of section 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) do not apply under the facts of this
7
case, DEA had no obligation, and continues to have no obligation, to act on Plaintiff’s FOIA
8
request in the absence of payment or the promise of payment of fees.
9
III. Plaintiff’s Request for Instructive Order and Conclusion
10
Following DEA’s motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff filed a request for instructive
11
12
order regarding the motion for reconsideration. The gist of Plaintiff’s request for instructive
13
order is he appears to have been under the impression that the court’s order of October 29, 2014,
14
denying summary judgment as to DEA was somehow final and not susceptible to a motion under
15
Rule 60(b). That impression is, of course, erroneous. The court is aware that, because it did not
16
specifically inform Plaintiff that the October 29 Order was reviewable under Rule 6(b), Plaintiff
17
did not submit a formal opposition to DEA’s motion for reconsideration.
18
While the fact the court did not respond to Plaintiff’s request is something of an
19
20
oversight, the court nonetheless finds that it need not solicit Plaintiff’s opposition prior to
21
granting the DEA’s motion for reconsideration. There are two reasons for this finding. First,
22
Plaintiff adequately explained his position regarding qualification for waiver in his affidavit and
23
adequately presented his argument regarding post-hoc rationalization in his motion to compel.
24
25
The court finds that in sum, Plaintiff presented all relevant arguments for application of fee
waiver. Second, and perhaps more important, the court’s ruling on DEA’s motion for summary
26
27
28
judgment does not prejudice Plaintiff because it has relatively little effect on Plaintiff’s overall
effort to gain access to information to the relationship between DEA and Oales or Alho. The
-9A
1
2
quality and quantity of information that Plaintiff is legally entitled to recover through the FOIA
process will be determined by the extent to which the court finds FBI’s invocation of FOIA
3
4
5
exemptions apply in light of the Vaughn index that has been produced by FBI or any future
Vaughn index that may be required by the court. Once it becomes clear what information
6
Plaintiff may recover under FOIA under the particular facts of this case, Plaintiff is free to
7
resubmit his FOIA request to DEA if he finds that the information recoverable is worth the cost.
8
Because there is no prejudice to Plaintiff, the court finds that further prolongation of proceedings
9
to receive an opposition to DEA’s motion for reconsideration is not necessary.
10
11
THEREFORE, for the reasons stated, it is hereby ORDERED, that the motion of
12
13
defendant DEA for summary judgment is DEEMED to be a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s FOIA
14
claim against DEA for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court finds
15
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted because Plaintiff has failed to
16
pay the statutory fees and has failed to show entitlement to fee waiver. The DEA’s motion to
17
18
Dismiss is therefore GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claim under FOIA against DEA is hereby
DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion to require DEA to produce a Vaughn index is
19
20
correspondingly DENIED.
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
Dated: September 28, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
-10A
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?