Kriemelmeyer, Frederick v. Krebs, Kevin et al
Filing
29
ORDER denying (20), (21) Motions to Compel in case 3:18-cv-00048-bbc; denying (21), (22) Motions to Compel. in case 3:18-cv-00148-bbc. Plaintiff's claims against defendant Kevin Krebbs are DISMISSED as moot. Krebs is DISMISSED as a defendant. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 11/9/2018. Associated Cases: 3:18-cv-00148-bbc, 3:18-cv-00048-bbc (jef),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF W ISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FREDERICK GEORGE KRIEMELMEYER,
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
18-cv-148-bbc
v.
U.S. DEPT. OF STATE, CHICAGO PASSPORT AGENCY,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FREDERICK GEORGE KRIEMELMEYER,
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
18-cv-48-bbc
v.
KEVIN KREBS and ARNETTA MALLORY,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In these two consolidated cases, pro se plaintiff Frederick George Kriemelmeyer is
proceeding on claims under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B),
against the United States Department of State. Plaintiff has filed motions to compel in each
case. (Dkt. #20 and #21 in 18-cv-48; dkt. #21 and #22 in 18-cv-148).
For the reasons
below, I am denying both motions. Plaintiff also filed a motion to dismiss defendant Kevin
Krebs with costs. I am dismissing Krebs because plaintiff’s claim against him is moot, but I
am denying plaintiff’s request for costs.
1
OPINION
A. Motion to Compel Documents Relating to Plaintiff’s Requests for
Foreign Agent Registrations
Plaintiff’s first motion to compel relates to the Freedom of Information Act request he
sent to defendant Arnette Mallory, a government information specialist with the National
Security Division of the United States Department of Justice. In his request, plaintiff asked
for certified copies of oaths of office and Foreign Agent Registrations and numbers for three
government officials: Internal Revenue Service Special Agent Eric Kopp, Assistant United
States Attorney Elizabeth Altman and Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker. Dkt. #1-2 in 18cv-48. On March 7, 2018, defendant Mallory responded to plaintiff’s request stating, “This
office conducted a file search of the [Foreign Agents Registration Act] unit within the
National Security Division. W e did not locate any responsive records subject to FOIA.” Dkt.
#20-2.
Plaintiff filed a discovery request demanding from defendant Mallory provide (1) a
certified statement of the existence or non-existence of Foreign Agent Registrations filed with
her agency for the three government officials mentioned above, and (2) a certified statement
that Mallory’s agency is the “agency of record” for such documents, if they exist, and if not
recorded there, they do not exist, or in the alternative, where such records would be found.
Dkt. #18.
M allory’s counsel responded that Foreign Agent Registrations are publicly
disclosed and advised him of the website where he could search for the records. Dkt. #24-1.
Plaintiff then filed the present motion to compel, contending that defendants have been
nonresponsive, and seeking a certified statement from defendant Mallory as to (1) the
existence or non-existence of foreign agent registrations for defendant Kopp, Assistant U.S.
2
Attorney Altman and Judge Crocker; (2) whether Mallory’s agency is the agency where the
records would be located if they exist; (3) whether the records exist at all; and (4) where the
requested records would be found if not at her agency. Dkt. #20.
I am denying plaintiff’s discovery request.
“FOIA actions are typically resolved
without discovery.” Jordan v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 273 F. Supp. 3d 214, 229 (D.D.C. 2017)
(citations omitted); Schrecker v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 217 F. Supp. 2d 29, 35 (D.D.C. 2002)
(“Discovery in FOIA is rare.”). In some circumstances, discovery may be appropriate if there
is a dispute regarding whether the agency has taken adequate steps to uncover responsive
documents.
Schrecker, 217 F. Supp. 2d at 35.
Here, plaintiff’s discovery requests do not
relate to whether Mallory took adequate steps to respond to his requests. Rather, plaintiff is
seeking essentially the same information he sought in his Freedom of Information Act
request. He wants Mallory to create a certified statement that would provide the information
he seeks.
I conclude that discovery is not appropriate under these circumstances, because
“[d]isclosure of the documents is the ultimate relief that petitioner is seeking, not the subject
of a discovery dispute.” Bogan v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-C-0490-C, 2006 W L 6045183,
at *1 (W .D. W is. Nov. 16, 2006). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery from
defendant Mallory will be denied.
B. Motion to Compel Documents Relating to Plaintiff’s Passport Application
Plaintiff’s second motion to compel relates to his Freedom of Information Act requests
for documents relating to his passport application. Plaintiff served discovery requests on the
United States seeking the same documents he requested in his Freedom of Information Act
3
request, as well as the names of any individuals involved in the denial of his passport
application. The government objected to the discovery request and plaintiff filed a motion to
compel the government to produce “copies of all documents received from plaintiff in
conjunction with plaintiff’s application for a National Passport”; “certified copies of all
paperwork, documents, notes, testimony, faxes, writings, recordings and other information
upon which Defendants rely in denying plaintiff a National Passport”; and a list of all
persons with “any direct or indirect connection to the investigation of and/or the decision to
deny Plaintiff’s application for a National Passport.” Dkt. #22 in 18-cv-148.
For the same reasons explained above, I will deny this motion to compel.
Plaintiff
cannot litigate his Freedom of Information Act claim through a motion to compel.
I will
consider the merits of plaintiff’s claims and the government’s responses after the parties have
fully briefed the issues in connection with a dispositve motion. If there are disputed issues of
fact that require discovery after the court has considered the government’s position, I will
determine whether additional information is needed.
C. Motion to Dismiss Defendant Krebs
In one of his motions to compel, plaintiff also requests that defendant Kevin Krebs be
dismissed as a party “subsequent to his payment of the costs associated with the prosecution
of this case.”
Dkt. #20 in 18-cv-48.
Plaintiff says that Krebs has now produced the
information plaintiff originally sought from him and, specifically, a copy of Attorney
Altman’s oath of office. According to Krebs, the delay in responding to plaintiff’s request was
the result of an error in entering his request into the agency’s computer system. As soon as
4
Krebs became aware of plaintiff’s request, as a result of this lawsuit, he provided the
responsive information.
I will dismiss defendant Krebs from this lawsuit because it is clear from the parties’
assertions that plaintiff’s claim against Krebs is moot. However, I will deny plaintiff’s request
for costs against Krebs. The Freedom of Information Act provides that courts “may assess
against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably
incurred in any case . . . in which the complainant has substantially prevailed.” 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(4)(E)(i). A complainant has substantially prevailed “if the complainant has obtained
relief through either—(I) a judicial order, or an enforceable written agreement or consent
decree; or (II) a voluntary or unilateral change in position by the agency, if the complainant’s
claim is not insubstantial.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E)(ii). In this instance, Krebs released the
requested information to plaintiff as soon as he became aware of the request. The court did
not order the release and the agency was not compelled to act by this lawsuit. Although the
lawsuit gave Krebs notice of plaintiff’s outstanding request, plaintiff could have provided the
same notice without litigation, by either making a phone call or sending a letter.
Moreover, even if plaintiff had shown that he “substantially prevailed” in his claim
against Krebs, I would deny his request for costs. The award of costs or fees in a Freedom of
Information Act case is left to the discretion of the district court. Stein v. Dept. of Justice,
662 F.2d 1245, 1261-62 (7th Cir. 1981).
In exercising its discretion, the court should
consider, at a minimum: “(1) the benefit to the public, if any, derived from the case; (2) the
commercial benefit to the complainant; (3) the nature of the complainant's interest in the
records sought; and (4) whether the government's withholding of the records had a
5
reasonable basis in law.” Id.; Menasha Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, No. 11-C-682, 2012
W L 1034933, at *2 (E.D. W is. Mar. 26, 2012) (applying factors from Stein). Plaintiff has
not shown that the public derived any benefit from this case or even why plaintiff was
interested in the record he requested from Krebs. Additionally, Krebs did not intentionally
withhold documents on the basis of any legal interpretation. Rather, his failure to respond in
a timely manner to plaintiff’s request was solely the result of an error that was corrected as
soon as Krebs became aware of it.
inappropriate.
Under these circumstances, an award of costs is
Mobley v. Dept. of Homeland Security, 908 F. Supp. 2d 42, 48 (D.D.C.
2012) (denying request for costs where “government’s compliance with the plaintiffs’ request
so early in the litigation is not the sort of agency behavior that Congress intended to prevent
by awarding” costs or fees).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff Frederick George Kriemelmeyer’s motions to compel (dkt. #20 and #21
in 18-cv-48; dkt. #21 and #22 in 18-cv-148), are DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Kevin Krebbs are DISM ISSED as moot. Krebs
is DISMISSED as a defendant.
Entered this 9 th day of November, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
_________________________________
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge
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?