Pickard v. Department of Justice

Filing 219

ORDER FINDING VAUGHN INDEX SUFFICIENT Re: Dkt. No. 217 Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 7/20/2015. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
WILLIAM LEONARD PICKARD,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No. 06-cv-00185 CRB (NC)
ORDER FINDING VAUGHN INDEX
SUFFICIENT

v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Re: Dkt. No. 217

Defendant.

15
16

In this Freedom of Information Act case, plaintiff William L. Pickard seeks

17

information from the federal government relating to confidential informant Gordon Todd

18

Skinner. Because the government seeks to withhold the requested documents, it filed a

19

113-page Vaughn Index. Dkt. No. 166; see Wiener v. FBI, 943 F.2d 972, 977 (9th Cir.

20

1991) (“[G]overnment agencies seeking to withhold documents requested under the FOIA

21

have been required to supply the opposing party and the court with a Vaughn index,

22

identifying each document withheld, the statutory exemption claimed, and a particularized

23

explanation of how disclosure of the particular document would damage the interest

24

protected by the claimed exemption.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

25

After an initial review, the district court found the Vaughn Index insufficiently

26

detailed and ordered the government to file a more detailed Vaughn Index or supporting

27

declaration, and to submit the withheld documents to the undersigned judge for in camera

28

review. Dkt. No. 198. This Court reviewed the government’s second Vaughn Index, the
Case No.: 06-cv-00185 CRB (NC)

1

supporting declaration, and the responsive documents, and found that the index still failed

2

to sufficiently describe the withheld documents in adequate detail. Dkt. No. 210. The

3

Court noted that the government also failed to identify what documents have already been

4

released publicly, which the district court ordered it to do. Id. (citing Dkt. No. 198 at 9).

5

This Court then ordered the government to file a third Vaughn Index and supporting

6

declaration, which the government submitted on April 9, 2015. Dkt. No. 217.

7

Having reviewed the most recent Vaughn Index and supporting declaration, this

8

Court finds that this third Vaughn Index satisfies the district court’s order; it is sufficiently

9

detailed enough to reveal “as much information as possible without thwarting the
exemption’s purpose.” See Wiener, 943 F.2d at 979 (internal quotation marks and citation

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

omitted).

12

For example, in its first iteration, page 9 of the Vaughn Index described a document

13

but omitted an item in that same document called, “Drug Related Information.” Dkt. No.

14

166 at 10. That item was subsequently added to the second version of the Vaughn Index

15

but still omitted details. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 208 at 10 (“Contents: Identity of and/or

16

information related to CS.”); see also id. (Item: Block 6; Indexing Section . . . Contents:

17

Name(s) & third-Party NADDIS identifier”). This latest third version, however, describes

18

the formerly omitted section as the following: “Contents: Identity of & information

19

regarding the performance, location, & conduct of a CS.” Dkt. No. 217-1 at 10; see also

20

id. (“Item: Block 6; Indexing Section . . . Contents: Name(s) & identifier of third-party

21

involved in the illicit trafficking in schedule II controlled substances”). After reviewing

22

the corresponding document in camera, the Court finds that this more detailed description,

23

combined with an identification of the FOIA claimed exemptions—“(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),

24

b(7)(F)”—and the statement “Material deleted: Information related to and/or could

25

disclose the identity of CS” satisfies the Wiener standard.

26

In addition to producing a more sufficiently detailed Vaughn Index, the district

27

court ordered the government to explain whether information contained in the withheld

28

documents “has already been released publicly[.]” Dkt. No. 198 at 9. This Court, in its
Case No.: 06-cv-00185 CRB (NC)

2

1

prior order, noted that the government failed to do this. Dkt. No. 210 at 6. But in its most

2

recent supplemental declaration, the government states that “[t]here is no record of any

3

authorized release into the public domain of any report or document identified as

4

responsive by DEA.” Dkt. No. 217 at 3. The Court finds that this statement satisfies what

5

the district court ordered.

6

Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the Court finds the government’s most recent

7

Vaughn Index and accompanying declaration sufficient. Consequently, the government

8

need not produce a fourth Vaughn Index to this Court.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Any party may appeal this non-dispositive order to the district court within 14 days.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 20, 2015

13

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.: 06-cv-00185 CRB (NC)

3