Brown et al v. Perez

Filing 76

ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Defendants' 52 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' 41 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. All other pending motions (such as the Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order Pending Discovery, ECF No. 15 ) are hereby DENIED as MOOT. All issues before the Court are now resolved and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 12/23/2014. (alowe)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01722-RM-MJW
BLAKE BROWN,
DEAN BIGGS,
JACQUELINE DEHERRERA,
RUTH ANN HEAD,
MARLENE MASON,
ROXANNE MCFALL,
RICHARD MEDLOCK, and,
BERNADETTE SMITH.
Plaintiffs,
v.
THOMAS E. PEREZ, Secretary of Labor,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, an agency of the United States, and
OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION, an agency of the United States Department
of Labor,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________________
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the parties’ cross motions for summary
judgment (ECF Nos. 51 & 52). Plaintiffs Blake Brown, Dean Biggs, Jacqueline Deherrera, Ruth
Ann Head, Marlene Mason, Roxanne McFall, Richard Medlock and Bernadette Smith
(“Plaintiffs”) seek an order finding that Defendants violated the Freedom of Information Act
(“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, by improperly responding to their FOIA requests. Defendants United
States Department of Labor, the Office of Workers Compensation, and Thomas E. Perez, the
Secretary of Labor (“Defendants”) seek an order finding that they responded appropriately to the
FOIA requests. A hearing was conducted on this matter on September 9, 2014. Upon

1

consideration of the arguments at the hearing, the Vaughn index, papers filed with the Court and
the applicable law, Plaintiffs’ motion is denied and Defendants’ motion is granted.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs brought this action under FOIA as part of an effort to demonstrate that the
Office of Workers Compensation Programs “engaged in fraud, waste and abuse by selecting
referee physicians in violation of federal employees’ . . . right to have referee physician[s]
randomly and equitably selected from a list of all board certified physicians.” (ECF No. 41 at 2.)
In order to prove that, Plaintiffs sought various documents related to the referee physician
selection process in District 121, among them records listing the physicians accepting referrals,
the chronological file of referral letters, print outs of selection software screens, and other related
documents. (See, e.g., ECF No. 42-6, FOIA Request Example.) In response, Defendants
produced some of the requested reports, redacted and produced others, and denied other requests
claiming either a FOIA exemption, or that the documents did not exist, or some other defect with
the FOIA request, as detailed further below. Plaintiffs contested the withholding of some of
these categories of documents that were not produced, and this suit resulted.
A.

Plaintiffs’ FOIA Requests
Under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (“FECA”), the Office of Workers

Compensation Programs (“OWCP”) selects referee physicians to resolve medical conflicts that
arise between treating physicians and second opinion physicians hired by OWCP. (ECF No. 72,
Proposed Findings of Fact by Plaintiffs, at 1.) FECA provides workers’ compensation benefits
to civilian federal employees who sustain injury or illness in the performance of duty. (ECF No.
1

The Office of Workers Compensation Program administers the Division of Federal Employees Compensation, the
subject of the instant suit, which has various district offices covering groups of states. The instant suit concerns
District 12, which covers the following states: Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Montana, and Utah. See Contacting Your Federal Employees’ Compensation District Office, United States
Department of Labor, http://www.dol.gov/owcp/contacts/fecacont.htm (last visited December 19, 2014).

2

52-1 at 3-4.) Plaintiffs are claimants who received or are receiving FECA benefits. (Id. at 4.)
An individual qualifying for FECA benefits must show a qualifying medical condition supported
by a physician’s opinion. (Id.) Where a conflict exists between two physicians’ medical
opinions, FECA requires the appointment of a third referee physician to resolve the conflict. (Id.
at 5.)
OWCP requires that referee physicians be randomly selected from a database of all board
certified physicians using OWCP’s selection program. (ECF No. 72 at 2.) That selection
program was called the Physician Directory System (the “PDS”) until it was replaced by the
Medical Management Application (“MMA”). (Id.)
The PDS contained a list of American Board of Medical Specialists (“ABMS”) who were
chosen as physician referees on a rotational basis. (ECF Nos. 52 at 2; 72 at 2.) The opinions of
the referee physicians are final and binding. (Id. at 2.) The company that provided the
underlying database containing the ABMS list for the PDS was Elsevier, Inc. (“Elsevier”). (ECF
No. 52 at 2.) The PDS and the MMA were designed to “provide an automatic and strict
rotational scheduling feature for selecting referee physicians,” as Defendants put it, or to
“support the random and neutral scheduling of referee examinations,” as Plaintiffs put it. (ECF
Nos. 52 at 2, 72 at 2.) If the physician selected by the software is not available or unwilling to
conduct the examination, that physician is “bypassed” and another physician is selected by the
software. (See ECF Nos. 52 at 3; 72 at 2.)
Plaintiffs made FOIA requests for documents starting in 2001 regarding OWCP’s referee
physician selection process. (ECF No. 72 at 3.) Plaintiffs requested information for referee
examinations “in accord with FECA Bulletin 01-11 (6/4/02), which describes some of the reports
that can be generated by the PDS (now MMA) computer program.” (Id.) All in all, Plaintiffs

3

submitted over twenty FOIA requests from September 2009 through May 2011. (ECF No. 52-1
at 3.) Also, specifically at issue in the cross motions, Plaintiffs requested physician bypass
reports and pull-down screens from the PDS and MMA computer systems. (ECF No. 72 at 3.)
B.

Released and Withheld Information
According to Plaintiffs, “OWCP for the most part produced the requested reports but

redacted the names of the referee physicians claiming FOIA Exemption 6 (privacy).” (Id. at 3.)
OWCP did not produce bypass reports or screenshots of pull-down menus. (Id.) OWCP also did
not produce documents or information contained in the PDS; “OWCP has repeatedly advised
plaintiffs that it is unable to obtain information from the PDS because it no longer exists.” (ECF
No. 52-1 at 5.)
In response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests, OWCP conducted a search of the MMA
database. (ECF No. 52-1 at 6.) OWCP then released to Plaintiffs responsive information and
documents as a result of that search, including “[b]ypass [s]tatistics report with counts of
physician bypass for date range from Start 2000 to End 2001.” (ECF No. 52-1 at 11.) OWCP
produced other information in redacted form, deleting the names and identifiers of non-plaintiff
claimants and physicians. (Id. at 10-11.) “In the instances when OWCP made a partial release
of information, the description and rationale for withholding the information is included in . . .
the [Vaughn]2 Index.” (Id. at 7.)
The Vaughn index submitted by Defendants discloses the title of the attached Vaughn
Exhibit, the subject matter of the document (such as: “Information withheld consists of:
physicians’ names, physicians’ ID numbers”); the exemption asserted (such as: “Witheld in Part:
Exemption 4 – commercial information obtained from a person that is confidential”); and the
2

A Vaughn index is an agency’s compilation listing each withheld document and explaining the asserted basis for
its nondisclosure. Anderson v. Dep’t. of Health & Human Serv., 907 F.2d 936, 940, n.3 (10th Cir. 1990); see Vaughn
v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974).

4

applicable Plaintiffs. Defendants also attach a supporting declaration by an OWCP official,
Julia Tritz (ECF No. 52-1 at 1-19), detailing Plaintiffs’ requests and Defendants’ responses, and
attaching further supporting documentation.
II. ANALYSIS
There are many factual disputes between Plaintiffs and Defendants and the briefing and
supporting documentation is voluminous, but the actual issues that must be decided are relatively
narrow and concise in this case—first, whether physician and client names, phone numbers,
addresses and other identifiers were rightfully withheld under FOIA; second, whether OWCP
was required to create print-outs of computer screenshots of drop-down menus and produce them
under FOIA.3
A.

FOIA

“FOIA is designed to pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action
to the light of public scrutiny.” Anderson v. Dept. of Health & Human Serv., 907 F.2d 936, 941
(10th Cir. 1990) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, FOIA is to be
broadly construed in favor of disclosure and its exemptions are to be narrowly construed. Id.
The agency must demonstrate that it made a good faith effort to conduct a search for the
FOIA records requested, using methods which are reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant
documents. Schwarz v. FBI, No. 98-4036, 1998 WL 667643, at *1 (10th Cir. Sept. 17, 1998);
Information Network for Resp. Mining (“INFORM”) v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 611 F.Supp.2d
3

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment assumes that Plaintiffs were contesting the withholding of claimant
names and identifiers, but as they note in their responsive briefing, “Plaintiffs did not argue that claimant’s names
and identifiers must be released…Plaintiffs are apparently satisfied by OWCP’s decision to provide the last four
digits of claim numbers.” (ECF No. 57 at 9-10.) Plaintiffs did not address that statement either affirmatively or
negatively in their reply brief in response to that filing. Plaintiffs listed other FOIA requests in their Motion for
Summary Judgment which Defendants contend are beyond the scope of this litigation, and they similarly do not
respond to this charge. (See id. at 19.) Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs responsive briefing “takes issue with
only two aspects of OWCP’s FOIA responses: (1) the redaction of doctors’ names and other information; and (2)
OWCP declining to create printouts of certain computer screens.” (ECF No. 63 at 4.) A Vaughn Index has been
produced which substantiates Defendants’ position on the nonproduction of all other documents.

5

1178, 1184 (D.Colo. 2009) (“INFORM v. BLM”). “To show reasonableness at the summary
judgment phase, an agency must set forth sufficient information in its affidavits for a court to
determine if the search was adequate.” Schwarz v. FBI, supra at *1 (citation and quotation
marks omitted). “The affidavits must be reasonably detailed, setting forth the search terms and
the type of search performed, and averring that all files likely to contain responsive materials (if
such records exist) were searched.” Id. at *1 (citation and quotation marks omitted). The
reasonableness of the agency’s search depends on the facts of each case. INFORM v. BLM,
supra at 1184.
A search is not unreasonable simply because it failed to produce all relevant material.
“The fundamental question is not whether there might exist any other documents possibly
responsive to the request, but rather whether the search for those documents was adequate.”
Schwarz v. FBI, supra at *2 (citation and quotation marks omitted; italics in original). See also
James T. O’Reilly, Federal Information Disclosure, § 7.8 (“Records search disagreements –
Reasonableness”) (2013).
In order to withhold responsive information uncovered, the government agency must
prove the requested information falls within one, or more, of the nine specific exemptions from
disclosure. Hull v. I.R.S., 656 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2011); 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) & (b).
“Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such
record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this subsection.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).
The Court may enjoin the agency from withholding records or order the production of any
documents improperly withheld. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).
Where, as here, the parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court is
“entitled to assume that no evidence needs to be considered other than that filed by the parties,

6

but summary judgment is nevertheless inappropriate if disputes remain as to material facts.”
James Barlow Family Ltd. P’ship v. David M. Munson, Inc., 132 F.3d 1316, 1319 (10th Cir.
1997.) The Court reviews the government’s refusal to release requested information de novo.
Hull v. I.R.S., supra at 1177; 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). The Court has a variety of options it may
utilize to determine whether a sufficient factual basis exists for evaluating the correctness of the
agency’s action, including ordering the production of the withheld information, or some sample
thereof, for an in camera review; reviewing detailed affidavits/ declarations; or reviewing a
Vaughn index. See Hull v. I.R.S., supra at 1177-1178; Anderson v. Dep’t. of Health & Human
Serv., supra at 942. “If the government agency’s Vaughn index and affidavits are reasonably
clear, specific, and detailed, the court normally affords agency determinations substantial
weight.” Public Emp. for Envir. Resp. (PEER), Rocky Mtn. Chapter v. U.S. EPA, 978 F.Supp.
955, 960 (D.Colo. 1997). If the information provided is insufficient, the Court may issue further
orders to ensure it has an adequate foundation for its review. Anderson v. Dep’t. of Health &
Human Serv., supra at 942.
B.

Information Withheld Under Exemption 4

Defendants contend that some of the information withheld is covered by Exemption 4 of
FOIA; namely, the physician names, addresses, phone numbers and identification numbers.
(ECF No. 52 at 9.) Exemption 4 is asserted with respect to the referenced data as contained in
Physician Activity Reports, Physician Usage Reports, Physician Prompt Pay Lay Reports, and
certain IT reports as disclosed by the Vaughn index.
Exemption 44 exempts from disclosure trade secrets and commercial or financial
information that is privileged or confidential. If not a trade secret, for Exemption 4 to apply the
4

Plaintiffs argue that OWCP is no longer permitted to assert Exemption 4 because they failed to refer to it in letters
to Plaintiffs prior to litigation. The Court is persuaded by a review of the case law that Defendants did not waive

7

information must be “(a) commercial or financial, (b) obtained from a person, and (c) privileged
or confidential.” Anderson v. Dept. of Health and Human Services et al., 907 F.2d 936 (10th Cir.
1990) (quoting National Parks and Conservation Ass’n v. Mortion, 498 F.2d 765, 766 (D.C. Cir.
1974) (hereinafter National Parks)). Plaintiffs argue that the information withheld under
Exemption 4 is not commercial in nature, was not obtained from a person, and is not
confidential, and thus that it does not meet any of the three requirements for Exemption 4.
Plaintiffs argue that since the redacted names were generated by OWCP software,
“compiled by the government,” rather than obtained from a person, this information cannot fall
within Exemption 4. (ECF No. 53 at 11.) Defendants respond by noting that though OWCP
accesses the data using its own software, the data that Plaintiffs seek actually comes from a
private business entity, thus meeting the Exemption 4 requirement that the information be
“obtained from a person.” (ECF No. 63 at 6.) See, e.g., Pub. Citizen v. United States Dep't of
Health & Human Servs., 975 F. Supp. 2d 81, 98 (D.D.C. 2013) (“[T]he statute makes clear that a
‘person includes an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or public or private
organization other than an agency.’”) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 551(2)). The Court agrees with
Defendants both on that point and also that the information sought in this context is clearly
commercial in nature.
Turning now to the confidentiality requirement, there are two different tests for whether
information is “confidential.” According to the Tenth Circuit, the “first step . . . is determining
whether the information submitted to the government agency was given voluntarily or
involuntarily.” Utah v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 256 F.3d 967, 969 (10th Cir. 2001) (citing Critical

any FOIA exemptions by not raising them prior to this litigation. E.g., Cuban v. S.E.C., 744 F. Supp. 2d 60, 90
(D.D.C. 2010) on reconsideration in part, 795 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2011) (quoting Young v. CIA, 972 F.2d 536,
538 (4th Cir. 1992) (“[A]n agency does not waive FOIA exemptions by not raising them during the administrative
process.”).

8

Mass Energy Project v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 975 F.2d 871, 878-879 (D.C.Cir.1992) (en
banc) (hereinafter Critical Mass)). If voluntary, the Critical Mass test applies and the
information is protected from disclosure if “it is of a kind that would customarily not be released
to the public by the person from whom it was obtained.” Critical Mass at 879. On the other
hand, if the submission was involuntary, the National Parks test applies, and the information is
protected from disclosure by FOIA if disclosure will either “(1) ... impair the government's
ability to obtain necessary information in the future or (2) ... cause substantial harm to the
competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained.” National Parks at
770.
Both parties appear to agree that National Parks is the correct test, but the Court finds it
less than clear whether National Parks should apply versus Critical Mass. The data at issue is
part of a database provided by Elsevier under a commercial license agreement with the
government. Defendants note that the information sought “was provided to OWCP pursuant to a
licensing agreement, so it was required to be provided,” without addressing that Elsevier was not
required to undertake that agreement in the first place. (ECF No. 52 at 13.) No matter which test
is applied, however, the Court finds that Defendants prevail.
Under Critical Mass, the Court concludes that the information sought by Plaintiffs,
specifically, the names and identifiers for physicians in various contexts, would not customarily
be released to the public by a private company, Elsevier. The value of a commercial database is
inconsistent with the free and ready disclosure of its contents—even if restricted to District 12.
And information from Elsevier in the form of a communication to OWCP, despite Plaintiffs’
criticism,5 shows that Elsevier considers the information in its database to be such that it would
5

Plaintiffs suggest that the government encouraged Elsevier to object. (See ECF No. 53 at 5 (“Defendant
encouraged an objection and prompted Elsevier on how to couch its objection . . . .”).)

9

not be customarily released to the public by Elsevier. (See ECF No. 52-1, Elsevier Letter, at 4849) (stating that if OWCP disclosed the information sought in the FOIA requests, “we would be
unable to continue providing information and updates to DOL [Department of Labor], would
likely terminate the existing License, and may seek injunctive relief . . . .”).
Under National Parks, the Court concludes that disclosure would impair the
government’s ability to obtain necessary information in the future. It requires little deductive
reasoning to reach the conclusion that companies in the business of licensing commercial data to
the government would be less likely to do so if their confidential data could be accessed by
anyone simply by making a FOIA request. Indeed, with respect to the PDS, the predecessor of
the current MMA, the Ninth Circuit has previously found Exemption 4 to apply. See O'Harvey
v. Comp. Programs Workers, 188 F.3d 514 (9th Cir. 1999) (unpublished opinion). Based on this,
as well as the Declaration of Julia Tritz, the Court finds that Exemption 4 applies. And as to the
alternative Exemption 4 basis – safeguarding the submitter from competitive disadvantage – the
Court finds that this rationale too applies based on the Declaration and the Elsevier letter to
OWCP, discussed above. Under either test, the information sought is confidential.
On a separate note, Plaintiffs generally argue that since the information it seeks is
available to the public at the ABMS website, it is not confidential. (ECF No. 53 at 10.)
Defendants respond that although physician names and identifying information is obviously
known to the public, “context matters” because “the information requested would show that the
doctors performed referee examinations on specific individuals on specific dates.” (ECF No. 63
at 6.) On this point, the Court agrees with Defendants that context matters. The public nature of
the names, addresses and phone numbers of physicians does not mean that the information is not
confidential when it is given in the context of documents that reveal a physician’s activities,

10

referrals, clients, etc. The Court finds that the information is confidential, and that Exemption 4
applies.
C.

Information Withheld Under Exemption 6

Defendants redacted certain information from a variety of documents from medical and
claim files. The information withheld pertained either to the physicians performing
examinations or to the claimants with respect to whom examinations were made. The withheld
material includes such matters as physician EIN numbers, patient names or identifiers and other
physician identifiers including names and addresses.6
The Vaughn index, along with other supporting evidence, substantiates the OWCP’s
withholding of documents claimed under Exemption 6. Under this exemption, the agency need
not disclose “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). “Similar
files” “has a broad, rather than a narrow, meaning and encompasses all information that applies
to a particular individual.” Forest Guardians v. U.S. F.E.M.A., 410 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir.
2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the limited information segregated and withheld
through redaction contains personal names and identifiers within “similar files.” (ECF No. 52-1
at 21-24.)
In evaluating whether Exemption 6 should apply, courts balance the privacy interest of
the persons whose information would be released against the public interest the requestors
demonstrate. See, e.g., Sheet Metal Workers Intern. Ass’n Local No. 9 v. U.S. Air Force, 63 F.3d
994, 997 (10th Cir. 1995). The Supreme Court has narrowly defined “public interest” to mean
“the extent to which disclosure would serve the ‘core purpose of the FOIA,’ which is
6

Defendants also redacted case numbers from records produced, but has agreed to reproduce the same, redacting
only the first five of the nine digit case numbers.

11

‘contribut[ing] significantly to the public understanding of the operations or activities of the
government.’” U.S. Dept. of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 114 S.Ct. 1006,
1012 (1994) (quoting Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Comm., 109 S.Ct. 1468, 1482-83 (1989))
(alteration in original).
Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to the redacted data as the data will shed light on
“whether a particular physician performs a disproportionate share of the exams” without
impinging “significantly on cognizable interests in personal privacy” for the physicians. (ECF
No. 51 at 19.)
Defendants argue that the required link or nexus between the requested public records
and the asserted public interest is wanting here “because Plaintiffs allegedly already have
conclusive evidence of OWCP impropriety, and they offer no explanation how the requested
records would advance their understanding of that issue.” (ECF No. 57 at 16.) Defendants also
point out that the information requested would not show what Plaintiffs claim it would. If, for
example, all they receive is information about which physicians ultimately perform the referee
examinations, that would not shed light on whether the OWCP selection process is operating as it
should, since both selected physicians and the claimants themselves may have previously
challenged or declined a selection resulting in the “selected” physician not performing the
examination. (Id.)
In the Court’s view, the bottom line with regard to Exemption 6 is that the physicians and
private individuals appearing in case files have a clear privacy interest in their personal and
business information. That interest, as made clear by a review of the applicable case law,
includes “the individual’s control of information concerning his or her person” and includes
names and addresses. See, e.g., Forest Guardians, 410 F.3d at 1218 (citing United States Dep't

12

of Defense v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487, 500 (1994)). This privacy interest is not outweighed by any
public interest that has been articulated by Plaintiffs, and the Court will not require disclosure of
the redacted identifiers.
D.

Creation of Screenshot Printouts

Plaintiffs seek printouts of screenshots showing pull down menus, which they say are
“needed to show the functions that the referee physician software system the PDS can perform.”
(ECF No. 51 at 19.) Defendants argue that the printouts of screenshots of dropdown menus “do
not exist, and FOIA does not require an agency to create records to subsequently disclose.”
(ECF No. 63 at 10.) In response to this argument, Plaintiffs cite no case law to contravene the
notion that FOIA simply does not require Defendants to create screenshots and printouts where
none previously existed, but merely argue that “[c]learly, it’s not that OWCP can’t print the pull
down menus; it’s that OWCP will not print the pull down menus.” (ECF No. 53 at 20.)7 They
then cite Defendants language that “screen shots are not created or maintained as part of the
scheduling process,” and simply respond that “plaintiffs’ request for pull down menus does not
concern the scheduling process.” (Id.) They cite nothing and this Court has found nothing that
would call into question Defendants interpretation of the controlling case law which, as set forth
below, supports Defendants’ argument that they were not required to create and print
screenshots.
The Court agrees with Defendants that FOIA “does not oblige agencies to create or retain
records; it only obliges them to provide access to those which it in fact has created or retained.”
Kissinger v. Reports Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 152 (1980). Defendants

7

In terms of the print outs, OWCP’s FOIA response was that no responsive records existed because “OWCP
stopped using the PDS in 2005 . . . [and] in PDS’s replacement, the MMA, the referee selection process can only be
done for an actual claimant and screenshots are not printed or otherwise created or maintained as part of the
scheduling process.” (ECF No. 73 at 6-7.)

13

will not be required to create and then produce printouts of computer screenshots as requested by
Plaintiffs.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.

Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED;

2.

Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED;

3.

Given the instant Order, all other pending motions (such as the Objection to
Magistrate Judge’s Order Pending Discovery, ECF No. 15) are hereby DENIED
AS MOOT;

4.

With the issuance of the instant Order, all issues before the Court are now
resolved and the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

DATED this 23rd day of December, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

14