RAD v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE et al
Filing
46
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 7/13/2016. (mmh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHRISTOPHER RAD,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 15-2415
v.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
(MARK COYEN),
OPINION
Defendant.
THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court upon a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant
the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey1 (“Defendant”). (ECF No.
35). Plaintiff Christopher Rad (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion. (ECF No. 42). Previously,
Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which Defendant addresses through its
motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 32, 34). The Court has decided the motions based on
the written submissions of the parties and without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule
78.1(b). For the reasons stated herein, both motions will be denied.
1
While Plaintiff filed suit against both the United States Attorney’s Office that prosecuted his
criminal case and an individual attorney in that office, Plaintiff later clarified that he only meant
to list the United States Attorney’s Office as a defendant. (Pl.’s Response to Def.’s Answer to
Compl. at 1, ECF No. 20). Therefore, the Court will dismiss “Mark Coyen” (Appellate Chief
Mark E. Coyne) from this case.
1
BACKGROUND
On November 30, 2012, Plaintiff was convicted of six counts arising from a securities
fraud scheme. (See United States v. Rad, Cr. No. 11-0161, Jury Verdict, ECF No. 68). On or
about February 5, 2015, Defendant received two Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests
from Plaintiff. (Decl. of Princina Stone (“Stone Decl.”) at ¶ 6, ECF No. 35-10). Plaintiff sought
a variety of records related to his criminal case. (FOIA Requests, Exs. A and B, ECF No. 3511). On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, alleging that Defendant had failed
to respond to his FOIA requests within twenty days. (Pl.’s Compl. at ¶ 7, ECF No. 1).
On September 17, 2015, Defendant forwarded Plaintiff’s FOIA requests to the Executive
Office for United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”). (Stone Decl. at ¶ 6). EOUSA responded to
Plaintiff’s requests, sending him relevant records on January 15, 2016, February 17, 2016, and
April 11, 2016. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-11). EOUSA informed Plaintiff that many records he requested were
withheld in part or in full because they fell under FOIA’s exemptions. (Id.). Additionally, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) was also involved in reviewing and sending records to
Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶ 10, 13). On March 18, 2016, the FBI sent Plaintiff responsive records, with
certain deletions made according to the agency’s interpretation of FOIA’s exemptions. (Letter
from FBI to Plaintiff (Mar. 18, 2016), ECF No. 35-9).
Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on March 18, 2016. (ECF No. 32).
Defendant requested permission to address Plaintiff’s motion in its motion for summary
judgment, scheduled to be filed by April 15, 2016. (ECF No. 33). The Court granted
Defendant’s request. (ECF No. 34). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction
and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment are presently before the Court.
2
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows “that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). In deciding a motion for summary
judgment, a district court considers the facts drawn from “the pleadings, the discovery and
disclosure materials, and any affidavits” and must “view the inferences to be drawn from the
underlying facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c); Curley v. Klem, 298 F.3d 271, 276-77 (3d Cir. 2002) (internal quotations omitted). In
resolving a motion for summary judgment, the Court must determine “whether the evidence
presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided
that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 25152 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate in a FOIA case when the defendant’s affidavits
“describe the withheld information and the justification for withholding with reasonable
specificity, demonstrating a logical connection between the information and the claimed
exemption, and are not controverted by either contrary evidence in the record nor by evidence of
agency bad faith.” Carp v. I.R.S., No. 00-5992, 2002 WL 373448, at *4 (D.N.J. Jan. 28, 2002)
(citation omitted).
A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy, which should be granted only in
limited circumstances.” Ferring Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 765 F.3d 205, 210 (3d
Cir. 2014) (quoting Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson-Merck Consumer
Pharm. Co., 290 F.3d 578, 586 (3d Cir. 2002). To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving
party must establish that: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits of the underlying litigation, (2)
he is likely to suffer irreparable injury in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of
equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Id.
3
ANALYSIS
I.
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because: 1) it conducted an
adequate search that was reasonably calculated to uncover all the documents relevant to
Plaintiff’s request, and 2) EOUSA and the FBI produced more than two hundred pages of
responsive documents, only withholding documents as appropriate under the FOIA exemptions.
(Def.’s Br. at 9-10, ECF No. 35-5).
FOIA mandates that agencies perform searches that are “reasonably calculated to uncover
all relevant documents.” Abdelfattah v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 488 F.3d 178, 182 (3d Cir.
2007) (quoting Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). Agencies are
then required to produce the relevant documents unless one of nine FOIA exemptions applies.
See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). If an agency believes one of the exemptions applies, then “[t]he agency
bears the burden of justifying the withholding, and the [district] court reviews the agency claims
of exemption de novo.” OSHA Data/CIH, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 220 F.3d 153, 160 (3d
Cir. 2000) (citation omitted) (alteration in original). There is a strong presumption in favor of
disclosure because FOIA’s purpose is “to facilitate public access to Government documents.”
Hecht v. U.S. Agency for Int’l Dev., No. 95-263, 1996 WL 33502232, at *5 (D. Del. Dec. 18,
1996) (citation omitted).
An agency can meet its burden by filing an affidavit that describes the material withheld
and explains why that material falls under a particular exemption. McDonnell v. United States, 4
F.3d 1227, 1241 (3d Cir. 1993). Specifically, agencies are generally required to submit a
“Vaughn index” (named after Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973) the case in which
the requirement was articulated.) The Vaughn index must be sufficiently detailed so that the
plaintiff and the district court can obtain a “clear explanation of why each document or portion of
4
a document withheld is putatively exempt from disclosure.” Hinton v. Dep’t of Justice, 844 F.2d
126, 129 (3d Cir. 1988). An “agency cannot justify withholding an entire document simply by
showing that it contains some exempt material.” Abdelfattah, 488 F.3d at 186 (citation omitted).
In this case, Defendant details the thorough search it conducted to uncover documents
responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests, and Plaintiff does not challenge the adequacy of
Defendant’s search. (See Pl.’s Br., ECF No. 42; Def.’s Br. at 10-12, ECF No. 35-5). Based on
Defendant’s supporting declarations describing the search, it appears that the search was
reasonably calculated to reveal all relevant documents, thus fulfilling one of FOIA’s
requirements. However, Defendant fails to carry its burden on the next FOIA requirement,
namely that it provide a “clear explanation of why each document or portion of a document
withheld is putatively exempt from disclosure.” Hinton, 844 F.2d at 129.
Defendant’s Vaughn index and supplemental Vaughn index are insufficiently detailed for
the Court to be able to find that Defendant properly withheld certain information. The indexes
condense hundreds of documents into just a few broad categories, such that it is unclear which
entry in the Vaughn index contains the specific information Plaintiff is seeking. (Cf. Venkataram
v. Office of Information Policy, No. 09-6520, Vaughn Index, ECF No. 57-3 (describing
individual letters, their contents, and why FOIA exemptions apply to their contents)). This
problem is compounded by the lack of any records for the Court to personally examine. Unlike
in other FOIA cases in this district, Defendant has not supplied the Court with the redacted
documents it supplied to Plaintiff. (See, e.g., De Paco v. United States Customs and Border
Protection, No. 14-5017, ECF No. 11-4 (displaying the eleven pages the defendant sent to the
plaintiff in response to his FOIA request); American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al., No. 11-2553, ECF No. 26-3 (displaying the partially
redacted bulletin the defendant sent to the plaintiff). This leaves the Court ill-equipped to
5
evaluate the arguments Plaintiff raises in his opposition brief, which focus on specific facts and
documents that are not directly addressed in Defendant’s submissions. (See Pl.’s Br. at 8, ECF
No. 42 (requesting contact information for Trevor Ruiz, interview notes concerning Trevor Ruiz,
and the date the E-gold subpoena was served)).2
Defendant’s brief lays out the general legal arguments for each FOIA exemption very
well, but fails to sufficiently apply the law to the present set of facts. At this time, it is unclear to
the Court why the specific pieces of information Plaintiff highlights repeatedly in his opposition
brief fall under one or more FOIA exemptions, or which documents may contain the information.
Defendant has not “describe[d] the withheld information and the justification for withholding
with reasonable specificity, demonstrating a logical connection between the information and the
claimed exemption.” Carp, 2002 WL 373448, at *4 (citation omitted). Therefore, the Court
must deny Defendant’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice to a prompt renewal.
II.
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party has the burden to establish that: (1)
he is likely to succeed on the merits of the underlying litigation, (2) he is likely to suffer
irreparable injury in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor,
and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Ferring Pharms., Inc., 765 F.3d at 210.
Plaintiff argues that: (1) he will succeed on the merits because none of the FOIA
exemptions apply, (2) he will suffer irreparable injury without relief because Defendant has
stalled and used “tricks” to avoid producing records he needs to challenge his criminal
2
Defendant did respond to Plaintiff’s arguments to some extent in a reply letter, however,
Plaintiff and Defendant appear to be largely talking past each other. For example, Plaintiff is
doubtful that “Trevor Ruiz” ever existed, and thus is seeking proof that Mr. Ruiz is a real person,
while Defendant responded by explaining why there is no reason to think that Trevor Ruiz has
died since Plaintiff’s trial. (Pl.’s Br. at 6, ECF No. 42; Def.’s Rep. Let. at 2-3, ECF No. 43).
6
conviction, (3) Defendant will suffer no harm from releasing the records because no FOIA
exemptions apply, and (4) the public interest favors an injunction because the public “has a great
interest in holding the government accountable for its own rules.” (Pl.’s Mem. of Law, ECF No.
32).
The Court is not persuaded by these arguments. In particular, Plaintiff relies heavily on
the assertion that none of the FOIA exemptions apply to any of the records he is seeking.
Plaintiff’s broadly-worded FOIA requests include grand jury records and third parties’ private
account information, both of which are very likely to be covered by FOIA exemptions. Hodge v.
F.B.I., 703 F.3d 575, 580 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (noting that grand jury materials that reveal some
secret aspect of a grand jury’s investigation are covered by FOIA Exemption 3); McDonnell, 4
F.3d at 1254 (discussing how both Exemption 6 and Exemption 7(C) exempt information that
impinges on individuals’ privacy). Since it appears that at least some of the records Plaintiff is
seeking were properly withheld by Defendant, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he is likely to
fully succeed on the merits.
Plaintiff also cannot show irreparable injury is likely without an injunction, given that a
primary purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo pending a decision on
the merits. See Acierno v. New Castle Cnty., 40 F.3d 645, 647 (3d Cir. 1994). Entering a
preliminary injunction would dramatically change the status quo, effectively allowing Plaintiff to
win his case without a decision on the merits, which is simply not warranted here. Since
Plaintiff has not carried his burden on his motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court must
deny the motion.
7
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be
denied without prejudice, and Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction will also be denied.
An appropriate order will follow.
/s/ Anne E. Thompson
ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
Dated: 7/13/16
8
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?