Skip to main content

Sigler v. HHS, No. 18-00683, 2019 WL 4739896 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2019) (Wright II, J.)

Date

Sigler v. HHS, No. 18-00683, 2019 WL 4739896 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2019) (Wright II, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning plaintiff's 2016 and 2017 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act complaints against former health insurance provider

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

  • Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court holds that "HHS is entitled to summary judgment on this issue."  The court relates that "HHS supported the adequacy of its search [by] . . . explain[ing] that: (1) the FOIA office forwarded [plaintiff's] request to [the Office of Civil Rights ("OCR")] as the investigating agency; (2) OCR maintains records having to do with complaints in [its Program Information Management System ("PIMS")] and organized by OCR transaction number; (3) [plaintiff] requested records related to his HIPAA complaints, which had been assigned OCR transaction numbers; and (4) OCR conducted records searches of PIMS using the transaction numbers [plaintiff] provided."  "These undisputed facts demonstrate that HHS conducted a search 'reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents' relating to the investigation of [plaintiff's] HIPAA complaints."
     
  • Exemption 4:  The court finds that "HHS has met its burden to justify the Exemption 4 withholdings."  The court finds that "[defendant's] Declaration also explained that the withheld documents were confidential, commercial internal policies, not available to the public."
     
  • Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege:  The court holds that "HHS has met its burden to justify the Exemption 5 withholdings."  The court explains that defendant properly withheld "two pages of an email exchange between OCR employees and an OCR contractor 'regarding the handling and status of a complaint and interpretations of what that status means[]'" because they were a "'predecisional, deliberative, intra-agency discussion' regarding an OCR complaint."
     
  • Exemptions 6 & 7(C):  The court holds that "HHS has met its burden to justify the Exemptions 6 and 7(C) withholdings."  "The Court agrees with HHS that disclosure of this identifying information, the names and contact information of individuals who provided information to OCR, can reasonably be expected to constitute an 'unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.'"  "Further, disclosure of this personal identifying information sheds no light on HHS's 'performance of its statutory duties.'"
     
  • Exemption 7(E):  "[T]he Court concludes that HHS appropriately withheld information pursuant to Exemption 7(E)."  The court relates that "HHS describes the documents withheld, identifies the exemption claimed, and explains that the documents fall within Exemption 7(E) because they reflect procedures and techniques used during the investigation of HIPAA complaints."  "Further, the Vaughn Index explains that information was withheld under [Exemption] 7(E) because it 'includes information on types of questions asked and documents requested by OCR investigators during the course of an investigation' and '[r]elease of this information would enable entities named in complaints to interfere with OCR's complaint investigation and information collection.'"
     
  • Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements:  The court holds that "HHS has met its burden 'to establish that all reasonably segregable portions of a document have been segregated and disclosed.'"  "HHS released non-exempt documents and, where redactions were required, narrowly targeted those redactions to omit only the exempt information."  "[Defendant's] Declaration further explains why the documents at issue are exempt, what information was withheld, and that '[a]ll reasonably segregable non-exempt information was segregated and released.'"
     
  • Litigation Considerations, Discovery:  "[T]he Court finds HHS's search adequate and its declarations reasonably detailed and in good faith."  Also, "there are no genuine disputes of material fact here."  "Thus, discovery is not warranted."
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Exemption 4
Exemption 5
Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege
Exemption 6
Exemption 7(C)
Exemption 7(E)
Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search
Litigation Considerations, Discovery
Litigation Considerations, Supplemental to Main Categories
Litigation Considerations, “Reasonably Segregable” Requirements
Updated December 16, 2021