Eakin v. United States Department of Defense
Filing
110
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 94 Motion to Amend Complaint, filed by John Eakin. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth. (mgr)
FILED
March 02, 2022
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
Breanna Coldewey
BY: ________________________________
DEPUTY
JOHN EAKIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 5:16-cv-972-RCL
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff John Eakin, representing himself pro se, seeks the Court's leave to amend his
Complaint to include an additional Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request. ECF No. 94.
The Court has previously granted Eakin leave to file a First Amended Complaint.
See
ECF Nos. 58-1, 62, 63. The United States Department of Defense ("DOD") opposes this motion.
ECF No. 95. After considering the motion, opposition, and applicable law, the Court will GRANT
Eakin's motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.
I.
BACKGROUND
This litigation arises from Eakin's longstanding effort to obtain information about the
missing and unidentified remains of World War II-era servicemen. In May 2016, Eakin submitted
a FOIA request seeking "[e]lectronic (digital) copies of all World War II era Individual Deceased
Personnel Files (IDPFs)." Mem. Op. I, ECF No. 62. Eakin uses this information to search for
these fallen servicemembers' remains and repatriate them for burial by their families. Mem. Op. 2,
ECF No. 78. Once DOD notified Eakin that it could not produce these documents within the
twenty-day statutory deadline, and after it constructively denied Eakin 's agency appeal, Eakin sued
in this Court. Complaint, ECF No. 1.
When Eakin filed his initial FOIA request, the government had only digitized IDPFs for
servicemembers with last names beginning with A-L. Mem. Op. 2, ECF No. 78. The Court thus
held that Eakin "had exhausted his administrative remedies-and had thereby imbued this Court
with subject matter jurisdiction-only as to the A-L files." Id. The day after that ruling, Eakin
filed a new FOIA request covering IDPFs for servicemembers with last names beginning with
M-Z. Mem. Op. 3, ECF No. 62. After DOD represented that it could not meet the statutory
deadline for this request, the Court granted Eakin leave to amend his complaint to include the M-Z
files that had already been digitized. Id. at 1-3.
Eakin now seeks leave to amend his complaint a second time. ECF No. 94. On April 12,
2021, DOD informed Plaintiff and the Court that it had completed digitizing the M-Z files.
ECF No. 94-4 at 3. That same day, Eakin submitted a FOIA request for "the balance of the
requested files" that were "not previously produced." ECF No. 94-2 at 1. That is, Eakin requested
the M-L files that were not digitized when he filed his First Amended Complaint. On May 12,
2021, Eakin filed the present motion for leave to amend his complaint to incorporate claims that
DOD constructively denied this April 2021 FOIA request. ECF No. 94. The DOD opposes this
motion for the same reasons it opposed Eakin's motion for leave to file a First Amended
Complaint. ECF No. 95.
II.
LEGALSTANDARD
As the Court has previously explained, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 provides the
proper standard for this motion. Mem. Op. 3-4, ECF No. 62. Under Rule 16, the Court may
modify a deadline set in a scheduling order "for good cause." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Judge
Rodriguez's scheduling order required amended pleadings to be filed by December 30, 2016. See
2
ECF No. 15. Since Eakin filed this motion years after that deadline, Rule 16's "good cause"
standard applies. See Mem. Op. 4, ECF No. 62. Eakin must show that an amendment is justified
based on (I) an "explanation for the failure to move timely for leave to amend," (2) "the importance
of the amendment," (3) any "potential prejudice" were the amendment allowed, and (4) "the
availability of a continuance" to cure any prejudice. Hawthorne Land Co. v. Occidental Chem.
Corp., 431 F.3d 221,227 (5th Cir. 2005).
III.
DISCUSSION
As before, the Court finds good cause to permit Eakin to amend his complaint. Eakin has
fuliy explained his failure to move for leave to amend within the original deadline.
The
amendment is critical to this litigation, as it encompasses the remainder of the files that Eakin has
already fought to obtain. And DOD cannot claim prejudice when it has been on notice for years
that Eakin sought the entirety of IDPFs relating to World War II-era servicemen.
First, Eakin has fully explained his failure to amend his pleadings within the original
deadline. When Eakin first filed this litigation, the M-Z IDPFs did not exist in digital format. See
Mem. Op. 8, ECF No. 53. It was impossible for Eakin to include these documents in an amended
pleading-and, indeed, he tried to do so-because he could not have exhausted his administrative
remedies. Id. at 8-9. "Absent a new FOIA request," the Court was "without power to order [DOD]
to produce the digitized M-Z files." Id. at 8. Eakin filed the present motion only after receiving
notice that DOD had completed that digitization process. See ECF No. 94-4 at 3. So, in short,
Eakin filed this motion as soon as it was feasible.
Second, this amendment is critical to ensuring this litigation proceeds on an orderly basis.
As Eakin has highlighted, "[t]he additional files are virtually identical to those that are the subject
of this case" and "contain no new or unique features not found in the current files." ECF No. 94
3
at 5. Were the Court to deny this motion, it would "not bar [Eakin] from bringing a separate
lawsuit" for any remaining M-Z files. Mem. Op. at 6, ECF No. 62. The Court has, moreover,
already permitted Eakin to amend his complaint to include some already digitized M-Z IDPFs.
See id. at 6-7. It would be a waste of judicial economy not to permit Eakin to amend his complaint
here to include the "final tranche" of M-Z files. ECF No. 94 at l.
Finally, DOD will suffer no prejudice from Eakin's amended complaint.
DOD " has
undoubtedly been aware since [Eakin] made his initial FOIA request that he would eventually seek
all the digitized files. " Mem. Op. 4, ECF No. 62. Were the Court to deny Eakin's motion, Eakin
could still seek relief through a standalone lawsuit. " Proceeding in that manner would have no
bearing on the ultimate outcome" of this lawsuit, " including which documents are withheld, which
words are redacted , etc.-the only difference would be that the time and resources of both the
litigants and the Court would be wasted. " Id. at 6. And, " [i]f anything, combining all requests"
for IDPFs in the same lawsuit "will speed up the process." Id. at 7. For these reasons, the Court
finds that good cause exists to grant Eakin ' s motion for leave to amend his complaint.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court will GRANT Eakin ' s motion for leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint. ECF No. 94. It will be ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall accept
Eakin ' s Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 94-1 , as filed.
The Court will enter an
accompanying order this date concerning scheduling deadlines and setting a status conference on
this matter.
Date: March
~c.~
~ , 2022
Royce C. Lamberth
United States District Judge
4
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?