Finney v. SSA, No. 14-17415, 2017 WL 2829389 (9th Cir. June 30, 2017) (per curiam)

Finney v. SSA, No. 14-17415, 2017 WL 2829389 (9th Cir. June 30, 2017) (per curiam)

Re:  Request for documents concerning requester's criminal conviction

Disposition:  Affirming district court's grant of government's motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holds that "[t]he district court properly granted summary judgment because [the requester] failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether . . . [the government] had not 'conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.'"  The district court previously adopted the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge that "the locations and records searched by the SSA were those the agency determined would most likely contain records responsive to [the requester's] FOIA request."
   
• Exemption 6:  The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holds that "[t]he district court properly granted summary judgment as to the documents pertaining to [third parties] because [the requester] failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether [the government] did not establish the documents were exempt from disclosure under Exemption 6 of FOIA."  The district court previously adopted the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge that "there is no indication that [the requested] documents [would] promote [a] public interest."
   
• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements, Vaughn Index/Declaration & In Camera Inspection:  The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holds that, "[c]ontrary to [the requester's] contentions, [the requester] was not entitled to segregated records, a Vaughn index, or in camera review of [the] documents."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Discovery:  The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holds that "[t]he district court did not abuse its discretion in denying [the requester's] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) motion because [the requester] failed to show how allowing additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment."  The district court previously adopted the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge that the government's declaration "adequately recite[d] the specific details of the search that was conducted."