Reyes v. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs et al

Filing 42

ORDER Directing Defendants to Lodge Materials for in Camera Review. Defendants shall lodge the materials withheld for in camera review on or before April 30, 2020. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 4/20/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (tcf)

Case 3:17-cv-01612-JAH-RBB Document 42 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.166 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EMILIO REYES,

Case No.: 17cv01612 JAH-RBB
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS
TO LODGE MATERIALS FOR IN
CAMERA REVIEW

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR, et. al.

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Courts

19

considering a motion for summary judgment in a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”)

20

case conduct a two-step inquiry. See Berman v. CIA, 501 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2007).

21

The first step assesses whether the agency demonstrates it met its obligation under FOIA

22

to conduct an adequate search for responsive records. See Zemansky v. U.S. EPA, 767

23

F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1985).

24

requires the court to consider whether the agency adequately demonstrates that any

25

information not disclosed is protected by at least one of the enumerated exemptions. See

26

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); U.S. Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 173 (1991). To prevail

27

on summary judgment in a FOIA proceeding, where the underlying facts and inferences

If the agency meets the initial burden, the second step

28
1
17cv01612 JAH-RBB

Case 3:17-cv-01612-JAH-RBB Document 42 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.167 Page 2 of 2

1

are construed in favor of the FOIA requester, an agency must prove that it has met both

2

burdens. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, 388 F. Supp. 2d at 1095.

3

Defendants maintain they are entitled to judgment because the search was reasonable

4

and they properly applied exemption (b)(6). Defendants submit affidavits and a Vaughn

5

Index1 in support. Upon review of the affidavits and Vaughn Index, the Court finds

6

Defendants include specific information supporting the adequacy of the search conducted.

7

However, the descriptions of the information withheld and the reasons provided in support

8

of the applicability of Exemption 6 are too general. They are not sufficiently specific to

9

permit this Court to determine whether the exemption was properly applied. The Court, in

10

its discretion, will conduct an in camera review of the withheld materials. 5 U.S.C. §

11

552(a)(4)(B); NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 224 (1978); Favish v.

12

Office of Indep. Counsel, 217 F.3d 1168, 1174 (9th Cir. 2000); Lewis v. I.R.S., 823 F.2d

13

375, 378 (9th Cir. 1987).

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Defendants shall lodge the materials

15

withheld for in camera review on or before April 30, 2020.

16

DATED:

April 20, 2020

17

_________________________________
JOHN A. HOUSTON
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

“[G]overnment agencies seeking to withhold documents requested under the FOIA have been required
to supply the opposing party and the court with a ‘Vaughn index’ identifying each document withheld,
the statutory exemption claimed, and a particularized explanation of how disclosure of the particular
document would damage the interest protected by the claimed exemption.” Wiener v. F.B.I., 943 F.2d
972, 977 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing King v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 830 F.2d 210, 223 (D.C. Cir. 1987)).

2
17cv01612 JAH-RBB