McNeely v. Department of Energy et al
Filing
74
ORDER GRANTING 30 FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING 34 GENERAL ELECTRIC'S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING 45 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING 49 FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/15/2017. The Clerk shall close this file. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
SAN JOSE DIVISION
13
14
MARTHA JANE MCNEELY,
Case No. 5:14-cv-03509-EJD
Plaintiff,
15
v.
16
17
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY, et al.,
18
Defendants.
19
ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS,
GRANTING GENERAL ELECTRIC’S
MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND
GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. Nos. 30, 34, 45, 49
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff Martha McNeely, appearing pro se, brings a variety of claims arising from (1) her
requests under the federal Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and Privacy Act (“PA”) and (2)
injuries she allegedly suffered from childhood medical treatments. Defendants are a range of
federal government agencies and employees (together, the “Federal Defendants”) and private
entities.
Case No.: 5:14-cv-03509-EJD
ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING
GENERAL ELECTRIC’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
Before the Court are the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss, General Electric
1
2
Company’s (“GE”) motion to dismiss, McNeely’s motion for summary judgment, and the Federal
3
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. McNeely’s motion will be denied and the other
4
motions will be granted.
5
I.
BACKGROUND
McNeely submitted two requests for records to the Department of Energy (“DOE”). First,
6
on June 21, 2012, McNeely submitted a PA request seeking copies of medical records from her
8
childhood on the Hanford nuclear reservation from 1947 through 1953. Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J.
9
(“Defs.’ MSJ”) 2, Dkt. No. 49 (citing the declaration of DOE employee Dorothy Riele). The DOE
10
conducted a search and located an index card containing McNeely’s name and an “X-Ray Record
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
Sheet.” Id. at 4–5. The DOE provided these documents and a letter summarizing the results of the
12
search (with the names of third parties redacted). Id. at 5. McNeely appealed and her appeal was
13
denied. Id.
Second, on February 2, 2014, McNeely submitted a FOIA request seeking records relating
14
15
to a study conducted from 1948 to 1952 where she alleges she “was a subject.” Id. The DOE
16
conducted a search and did not locate any responsive documents. Id. at 7. McNeely appealed and
17
her appeal was denied. McNeely then filed this action, bringing a variety of claims related to her
18
FOIA/PA requests, as well as claims relating to her childhood medical treatment. First Am.
19
Compl. (“FAC”), Dkt. No. 25.
20
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
21
A.
22
“Summary judgment is proper where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the
Summary Judgment
23
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Samuels v. Holland American Line—
24
USA Inc., 656 F.3d 948, 952 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). The Court “must draw
25
all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Id. “The central issue is ‘whether the
26
27
28
Case No.: 5:14-cv-03509-EJD
ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING
GENERAL ELECTRIC’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
2
1
evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-
2
sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
3
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251–52 (1986)). Pro se pleadings and motions should be construed liberally.
4
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000).
5
B.
6
If an agency withholds information that is responsive to a FOIA request, it must prove that
Summary Judgment in FOIA Cases
7
the information falls within a statutory exception to the disclosure requirement. See Dobronski v.
8
FCC, 17 F.3d 275, 277 (9th Cir. 1994). The agency may submit affidavits to satisfy its burden, but
9
“the government ‘may not rely upon conclusory and generalized allegations of exemptions.’ ”
Kamman v. IRS, 56 F.3d 46, 48 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dep’t of
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
the Army, 611 F.2d 738, 742 (9th Cir.1979)). The agency’s “affidavits must contain ‘reasonably
12
detailed descriptions of the documents and allege facts sufficient to establish an exemption.’ ” Id.
13
(quoting Lewis v. IRS, 823 F.2d 375, 378 (9th Cir. 1987)).
14
C.
15
A motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of claims
Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)
16
alleged in the complaint. Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir.
17
1995). Dismissal “is proper only where there is no cognizable legal theory or an absence of
18
sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732
19
(9th Cir. 2001). The complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
20
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
21
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
22
III.
23
24
DISCUSSION
A.
Federal Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and McNeely’s Motion for
Summary Judgment
The Federal Defendants seek summary judgment on McNeely’s FOIA/PA claims, arguing
25
that (1) their search for responsive documents was adequate, (2) information about third parties
26
27
28
Case No.: 5:14-cv-03509-EJD
ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING
GENERAL ELECTRIC’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
3
1
was properly withheld, and (3) an individual, Poli A. Marmolejs, is not a proper defendant.
First, the Court finds that the Federal Defendants’ search was adequate. “In demonstrating
2
3
the adequacy of the search, the agency may rely upon reasonably detailed, nonconclusory
4
affidavits submitted in good faith.” Zemansky v. U.S. E.P.A., 767 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1985)
5
(citing Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). Here, the
6
Federal Defendants have met their burden by providing detailed declarations from Amy Rothrock,
7
Dorothy Riehle, and Jonathan Dudley.
Second, the Court finds that that Federal Defendants properly withheld information about
8
9
third parties. Under FOIA’s Exemption 6, the government may not disclose “personnel and
medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). The medical records at issue here are
12
precisely the type of information that Exemption 6 protects from disclosure. McNeely has not
13
demonstrated any public interest that disclosure would serve. See Lahr v. NTSB, 569 F.3d 964,
14
973 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that courts must “balance the privacy interested protected by the
15
exemptions against the public interest in government openness that would be served by
16
disclosure”).
Third, the Court finds that Poli A. Marmolejos, an individual, is not a proper defendant.
17
18
See, e.g., Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581, 582 (5th Cir. 1987) (“Neither the Freedom of
19
Information Act nor the Privacy Act creates a cause of action for a suit against an individual
20
employee of a federal agency.”); accord Hewett v. Grabicki, 794 F.2d 1373, 1377 (9th Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, the federal defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be granted. For
21
22
the same reasons, McNeely’s motion for summary judgment will be denied.1
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
In her motion for summary judgment, McNeely argues that the Federal Defendants should have
provided a Vaughn index with its response to her document requests. Dkt. No. 45 at 6. But
McNeely has not established that the Federal Defendants were required to do so. See Fiduccia v.
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 185 F.3d 1035, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 1999) (“There is no statutory requirement
of a Vaughn index or affidavit. . . . [O]ur precedents plainly hold that neither a Vaughn index nor
Case No.: 5:14-cv-03509-EJD
ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING
GENERAL ELECTRIC’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
4
General Electric’s Motion to Dismiss
1
B.
2
McNeely alleges that General Electric Company (“GE”), and individuals associated with
3
it, are liable for injuries arising from the period when GE was a contractor at Kadlec Hospital.
4
FAC ¶¶ 3, 26–52. GE argues that McNeely’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata
5
because she has already litigated them in another case, In Re Hanford Nuclear Reservation
6
Litigation. Dkt. No. 34 at 3.
7
Res judicata applies when there is (1) an identity of claims (including claims arising from
8
the same events that could have been brought in the earlier action), (2) a final judgment on the
9
merits, and (3) privity between the parties. Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047,
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
1051–52 (9th Cir. 2005).
The Court agrees that all three factors are satisfied here. First, McNeely asserts the same
12
claims here that she asserted in the earlier litigation. Second, the earlier litigation resulted in a final
13
judgment on the merits. See Dkt. No. 35 Ex. A (attaching the order granting summary judgment
14
against McNeely). Third, GE was also a defendant in the earlier litigation.
15
Accordingly, GE’s motion to dismiss will be granted.
16
C.
17
In addition to her FOIA/PA claims, McNeely appears to assert various tort claims against
18
government entities arising from medical treatment she received from 1948 to 1953. FAC ¶¶ 26–
19
45. McNeely must pursue her claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. See 28 U.S.C. §§
20
1346(b), 2679(b)(1). Actions under the Federal Tort Claims Act must be instituted within two
21
years of accrual by filing a claim with the appropriate administrative agency. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).
22
McNeely brought her claims outside of the two-year limitations period. Accordingly, the Court
23
finds that McNeely’s claims (other than her FOIA/PA claims) are untimely and must be dismissed.
Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
24
25
26
27
28
an affidavit is necessarily required in all cases.”)
Case No.: 5:14-cv-03509-EJD
ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING
GENERAL ELECTRIC’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
5
1
IV.
CONCLUSION
2
The Court orders as follows:
3
1.
The Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 30) is GRANTED.
4
2.
GE’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 34) is GRANTED.
5
3.
McNeely’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 45) is DENIED.
6
4.
The Federal Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 49) is
7
8
GRANTED.
The Clerk shall close this file.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 15, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.: 5:14-cv-03509-EJD
ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING
GENERAL ELECTRIC’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
6
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?