Skip to main content

Pick v. Motorola Sols., Inc., No. 20-08011, 2022 WL 409681 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2022) (Holcomb, J.)

Date

Pick v. Motorola Sols., Inc., No. 20-08011, 2022 WL 409681 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2022) (Holcomb, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning FBI's assistance to Motorola in connection with its civil lawsuit against plaintiff

Disposition:  Granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment

  • Litigation Considerations, Summary Judgment:  "Defendants [] argue[] that the Motion is premature."  "Defendants would prefer to finish their review of potentially responsive documents—producing some and withholding some, presumably on their self-imposed timetables—before filing their own motion for summary judgment."  "As discussed at length during the hearings, Defendants view [plaintiff's] approach as atypical—a plaintiff's early summary judgment motion upsets Defendants' expectations and desires regarding how FOIA disputes are customarily litigated."  The court finds "[d]efendant's view . . . neither persuasive nor dispositive."  "The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure necessarily govern this case, notwithstanding that Defendants may be used to handling FOIA requests in their own way."  "Those Rules clearly provide that 'a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery.'"  "Defendants offer three reasons for their position."  "First, Defendants point to the Advisory Committee Notes, which state that a motion for summary judgment is premature when the responding defendant has not answered."  "But that argument is no longer applicable here; Defendants answered nearly a year ago."  "Second, Defendants cite . . . an out-of-circuit case in which a district court noted that a 'lack of timeliness does not preclude summary judgment for an agency in a FOIA case.'"  The court notes that "[h]ere, the FOIA plaintiff is the moving party."  "[The out-of-circuit case] is a sword for the government, not a shield."  "Third, . . . Defendants [assert] that summary judgment is not ripe until the responding agency produces a Vaughn [sic] index."  "However, [the cited] case does not support Defendants' argument."  "Additionally, during the hearings, Defendants insinuated that the agencies can move only so quickly, with their limited staff and resources."  "While the Court is deeply sensitive to those realities—and considers them in formulating an appropriate remedy—the availability of USAO staff or resources is not relevant to [plaintiff's] ability to move for summary judgment under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, let alone his statutory rights under the FOIA."

    "Defendants' second contention is that a genuine dispute exists with respect to material facts."  "The Court disagrees."  "The only material facts at this point are (1) whether Defendants improperly withheld any documents; and (2) whether any documents remain to be produced."  "The Court finds in the affirmative on both:  Defendants concede that [plaintiff] has standing, and they concede that thousands of pages of responsive documents remain unproduced."  "Furthermore, it is no answer that Defendants have produced documents in the interim."  "A recalcitrant federal agency cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment simply by trickling out responsive documents."

    "Third, Defendants argue that they have not waived any FOIA exemptions."  "In response, [plaintiff] argues that res judicata from the OIP appeal essentially estops Defendants from raising new exemptions."  "While the Court disagrees with [plaintiff] as a matter of law, that does not preclude the Court from granting summary judgment in his favor."  "[T]he Court finds nothing in the statute that gives Defendants a right to reserve their exemptions after they have already answered."  "Defendants' Opposition makes no mention of any exemption, nor do Defendants maintain that the OIP erred."  "Even in their most recent papers, Defendants make no argument for any exemption, despite the fact that they have already withheld at least 259 pages, in full or in part, on the basis of Exemptions 6 and 7(C)."  "Defendants could have raised those exemptions with the most recent supplemental briefing—if not at the outset."  "Defendants have had more than a year to ponder their Opposition to [plaintiff's] Motion."  "Yet Defendants have not capitalized on those opportunities; they have not made a single argument justifying any exemption, despite actively withholding documents on the same grounds that the OIP rejected."  "The Court finds it appropriate to GRANT Pick's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment."  "This ruling, however, does not forever foreclose Defendants from raising new exemptions, as [plaintiff] would have it."  "But Defendants must file an appropriate motion and must justify any exemptions."
     
  • Litigation Considerations, Relief:  "[After noting the multiple processing deadlines that defendants failed to meet], the Court finds it appropriate to order that any and all responsive material must be released to [plaintiff] by Friday, December 16, 2022."  "For any material in Defendants' possession, custody, or control that is responsive to [plaintiff's] FOIA request, Defendants must release it to [plaintiff] on an on-going basis as it is reviewed, with production due on the first Friday of every month."  "If any responsive documents remain redacted or withheld after Defendants finish production on or before December 16, 2022, Defendants must file a motion for reconsideration explaining why any withheld material should be exempted from disclosure, per this Order."  "Furthermore, as Defendants release materials to [plaintiff], Defendants shall provide contemporaneous Status Reports to the Court and to [plaintiff] that explain why documents, if any, have been withheld, redacted, or deemed non-responsive."  "Each Status Report will essentially be a preliminary Vaughn index or a privilege log, the latter of which commonly accompanies document production in discovery."  "To be 'crystal clear,' the congressional objective of the FOIA is 'to pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny,' such that 'nothing in the Act should be read to authorize withholding of information or limit the availability of records to the public, except as specifically stated . . . .'"  "Defendants should heed that message."
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Litigation Considerations, Relief
Litigation Considerations, Summary Judgment
Updated March 7, 2022