Carlson v. United States Postal Service

Filing 39

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero granting in part 34 Motion to Vacate (jcslc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (klhS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
DOUGLAS F. CARLSON,

7

Case No. 15-cv-06055-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

10

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION
TO VACATE OR LIMIT MINUTE
ORDER RE CONTACTING PLAINTIFF
Re: Dkt. No. 34

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Douglas F. Carlson initiated this action against the United States Postal Service

14
15

(“USPS”) on December 24, 2015, seeking to compel the production of records requested under the

16

Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. At a Case Management Conference on

17

December 2, 2016, the Court ordered that “[o]ther than the ordinary course of processing FOIA

18

requests the US Postal Service may not directly contact Mr. Carlson while the matter is pending.”

19

Dkt. 32. The Court further stated that the restriction “may be changed upon motion of the AUSA

20

for good cause.” Id. Presently before the Court is a request by USPS asking the Court vacate or

21

limit the restriction requiring USPS to communicate with Mr. Carlson only through counsel. Dkt.

22

34 (“Motion”). The Court finds the Motion suitable for determination without oral argument

23

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED in

24

part.1

25

II.

BACKGROUND
On June 15, 2016, a Postal Inspector went to Mr. Carlson’s residence “uninvited.” Carlson

26
27
1

28

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).

1

Decl. ¶ 1. Mr. Carlson was not home, so the Postal Inspector left with the lobby concierge a

2

business card with a hand-written note on the back asking Mr. Carlson to call him. Id. In

3

response to a subsequent e-mail inquiry from Mr. Carlson, the Postal Inspector told Mr. Carlson

4

that he was investigating in connection with a FOIA request about a particular employee of the

5

USPS and wanted to ensure that Mr. Carlson would not use the requested information to bring any

6

physical harm to the employee. Id. ¶ 3. When Mr. Carlson asked the Postal Inspector to identify

7

the specific FOIA request that was the subject of the investigation, the Postal Inspector said he did

8

not know which FOIA request he was investigating. Id.
On June 24, 2016, at a Case Management Conference, Mr. Carlson informed the Court of

9

the visit and said that he was “unnerved” by it. The Court directed counsel for USPS to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

“investigate the US Postal Inspector contacting Mr. Carlson regarding his FOIA request.” Dkt.

12

18. At a subsequent Case Management Conference, on December 2, 2016, counsel for USPS

13

provided little additional information, telling the Court only that the Postal Inspector had

14

contacted Mr. Carlson about “some of his FOIA requests,” that the reasons for the contact were

15

stated in the Postal Inspector’s emails to Mr. Carlson, and that “to the best of [her] knowledge,”

16

there had been no further contacts between Mr. Carlson and the Postal Inspector. Cormier Decl. ¶

17

4.

18

The results of Mr. Carlson’s own investigation suggest that the visit to his residence by the

19

Postal Inspector on June 15, 2016 was related to the FOIA request in this case. On July 15, 2016,

20

having received no information from counsel for the Postal Service, Mr. Carlson submitted a

21

FOIA request for documents related to the Postal Inspector’s visit to his residence. Id. ¶ 5. In

22

response, USPS produced to Mr. Carlson copies of emails between Mr. Carlson and the Postal

23

Inspector, printouts of the results of a May 18, 2016 search of federal docket records relating to

24

Mr. Carlson’s prior FOIA litigation, and DMV and AFS searches on Mr. Carlson. Id. The

25

documents also included the entire complaint and all of the exhibits supporting Mr. Carlson’s

26

FOIA request in the instant action. Id.

27

III.

28

DISCUSSION
“Federal Courts have the inherent power to manage their own proceedings and to control
2

1

the conduct of those who appear before them.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 33

2

(1991). It is within the court’s “inherent power to prohibit direct communications from one party

3

to another under appropriate circumstances.” Rein v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

4

995 F. Supp. 325, 332 (E.D.N.Y. 1998). The Postal Inspector came to Mr. Carlson’s residence

5

unannounced and when contacted by Mr. Carlson was unable to provide a complete explanation

6

regarding the purpose of his investigation, telling Mr. Carlson that he did not know which FOIA

7

request he was investigating. Because such contacts have the potential to intimidate a FOIA

8

plaintiff or even constitute harassment, the Court concludes that a limited restriction on direct

9

communications with Mr. Carlson is warranted here. The Court recognizes, however, the
concerns expressed by the USPS relating to the potential overbreadth of the Court’s previous

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

order.

12

Accordingly, the Court modifies the December 2, 2016 order relating to communications

13

with Mr. Carlson to provide as follows: Unless USPS obtains prior leave of this Court, any USPS

14

communications that are directly related to the FOIA request in the instant action, as stated in Mr.

15

Carlson’s complaint, shall be required to go through counsel.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: February 1, 2017

19
20
21

______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3