Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01461/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01461-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN 44332)

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON (CABN 88143)

Chief, Civil Division

NEILL T. TSENG (CABN 220348)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102-3495

Telephone: (415) 436-7155

FAX: (415) 436-6748

neill.tseng@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

OUR CHILDREN’S EARTH

FOUNDATION, a non-profit corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY, STEVEN L. JOHNSON, as

Administrator of the United States

Environmental Protection Agency, and

WAYNE NASTRI as Regional

Administrator of the United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-01461 SBA

E-FILING CASE

DEFENDANTS’ ORDER GRANTING

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO

THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

Date: July 29, 2008

Time: 1:00 p.m.

Place: Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor

Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong

I. INTRODUCTION.

On July 29, 2008, this court considered argument on Defendants’ Motion to Transfer

Venue to the District of Hawaii (the “Motion”). Having considered the Motion, Defendants’

memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion, Plaintiff’s memorandum in

opposition to the motion, Defendants’ reply brief in support of the Motion, the evidence before

the court, and the arguments of the parties, the court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to

Transfer Venue to the District of Hawaii and ORDERS the clerk of court to transfer this case to

the District of Hawaii.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Case 4:08-cv-01461-SBA Document 20 Filed 08/04/08 Page 1 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The “sewage collection system” is a complex network of sewer pipes, force mains and

sewage pump stations. In a sewage collection system, most sewers flow by gravity to low points

in a collection system. To reach a wastewater treatment plant, sewage must be collected from

these low points at pump stations. Pump stations pump sewage into force mains which lift

sewage out of these low points to higher places where the sewage can again flow downhill. 

Sewage collection systems are vulnerable to failures if overtaxed by excessive flows or if

allowed to deteriorate due to age or improper maintenance.

DEFS.’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOT. TO TRANSFER VENUE TO D. HAW.

C 08-1461 SBA

2

The United States, on behalf of USEPA, and the State of Hawaii, on behalf of the Hawaii

Department of Health (“HDOH”) filed suit against Honolulu in October 1994 to address

violations of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C § 1251 et seq. (more commonly

known as the Clean Water Act or CWA), and Hawaii’s equivalent State law, H.R.S. Chapter

342D (the “1994 lawsuit”). The complaint in the 1994 lawsuit alleged, inter alia, that Honolulu

had failed to adequately operate and maintain its sewage collection system, resulting in a

substantial number of discharges of raw sewage (commonly referred to as “sanitary sewer

overflows” or “SSOs”).1 The complaint in the 1994 lawsuit is attached as Exhibit 1 to

Declaration of Hugh Barroll. The parties settled the 1994 lawsuit in 1995 with the entry of a

Consent Decree (“1995 Consent Decree”). Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Hugh Barroll. Among

other things, the 1995 Consent Decree required Honolulu to undertake a 25 year program to

improve its sewage collection system. 1995 Consent Decree ¶ XXV.D. The 1995 Consent

Decree remains in effect. Declaration of Hugh Barroll at ¶ 3. The District Court has retained

jurisdiction over the 1994 lawsuit to enforce the terms and conditions of the 1995 Consent

Decree. 1995 Consent Decree ¶ XXIV.

Honolulu failed to fully comply with the 1995 Consent Decree, and has continued to

operate its wastewater treatment and collection system in violation of the Clean Water Act. 

Among other responses to the continued noncompliance, HDOH issued an administrative order

to Honolulu requiring it to take action to improve performance of its sewer force mains and

USEPA issued a series of administrative orders to address noncompliance at Honolulu’s main

sewage treatment plants (commonly referred to as the Sand Island Treatment Plant and the

Honouliuli Treatment Plant). Declaration of Hugh Barroll at ¶ 5. 

Case 4:08-cv-01461-SBA Document 20 Filed 08/04/08 Page 2 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DEFS.’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOT. TO TRANSFER VENUE TO D. HAW.

C 08-1461 SBA

3

During 2004 and 2005, USEPA, with the assistance of HDOH, undertook a

comprehensive assessment of Honolulu’s sewage collection system to evaluate Honolulu’s

compliance with the Clean Water Act and the terms of the 1995 Consent Decree. Following

completion of the sewage collection system assessment, USEPA prepared an Audit Report

summarizing its conclusions. Declaration of Hugh Barroll at ¶ 7. USEPA and HDOH also

performed detailed inspections of the Sand Island and Honouliuli Treatment Plants to evaluate

compliance with the Clean Water Act and H.R.S. Chapter 342D at these facilities. Following

completion of the inspections of the treatment plants, USEPA prepared Inspection Reports

summarizing its conclusions. Declaration of Hugh Barroll at ¶ 7. 

Also in 2004, Plaintiff, along with the Hawaii Chapter of the Sierra Club and Hawaii’s

Thousand Friends (collectively the “Environmental Groups”), filed their own lawsuit against

Honolulu pursuant to the citizen suit provisions of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365 (the

“2004 citizen suit”). The Environmental Groups alleged that Honolulu was not properly

operating and maintaining its wastewater collection system, leading to unpermitted sanitary

sewer overflows, and that Honolulu’s discharges from the Sand Island and Honouliuli Treatment

Plants were not in compliance with permit requirements. See Sierra Club et al. v. City and

County of Honolulu, Civ. No. 04-00463 DAE (D.Haw.). This litigation is still ongoing in the

U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii before Judge Ezra, the same District Court Judge

with jurisdiction over the actions filed by USEPA and HDOH against Honolulu.

In order to comprehensively address all Honolulu’s Clean Water Act violations, USEPA

and HDOH invited the Environmental Groups to join in negotiations with Honolulu in late 2005. 

As part of this process, USEPA, HDOH and the Environmental Groups entered into a

Confidentiality Agreement in December 2005. Exhibit 3 to Declaration of Hugh Barroll. The

Confidentiality Agreement is designed to facilitate the sharing of certain written investigatory

materials which the parties agreed were prepared “in anticipation of litigation.” See

Confidentiality Agreement, ¶ 8. The parties also agreed that “all privileges shall be preserved”

and that “privileged information shall be protected from disclosure” to any third parties. 

Case 4:08-cv-01461-SBA Document 20 Filed 08/04/08 Page 3 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 As part of the United States’ motion for entry of the Stipulated Order, USEPA

submitted the Declaration of JoAnn Cola in Support of United States’ Request to Enter

Stipulated Order, which Plaintiff references in its FOIA request detailed below.

DEFS.’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOT. TO TRANSFER VENUE TO D. HAW.

C 08-1461 SBA

4

Confidentiality Agreement, ¶ 9. Furthermore, the Confidentiality Agreement states that the

parties thereto “agree to consult with each other before producing documents relating to ...

[Honolulu’s sewage treatment] and/or its collection system and/or ... [Honolulu], whether such

production is made voluntarily, in response to any discovery request, or pursuant to any other

law of regulation.” Confidentiality Agreement, ¶ 10. To date, the parties have not consulted, or

requested consultation, under this or any other provision of the Confidentiality Agreement. The

Confidentiality Agreement has not been terminated according to its terms, and remains in full

force and effect.

Following execution of the Confidentiality Agreement, the United States, the State of

Hawaii, the Environmental Groups and Honolulu began settlement negotiations. As part of this

process, USEPA shared with the Environmental Groups a number of the documents at issue in

this matter, subject to the terms of the Confidentiality Agreement. This includes such documents

as the Audit Report of Honolulu’s collection system and settlement communications discussing

the findings of USEPA’s and HDOH’s investigations of Honolulu’s sewage collection system

and treatment plants. Declaration of Hugh Barroll at ¶ 14.

 In March 2006, while settlement negotiations were ongoing, Honolulu’s Beachwalk

Force Main in Waikiki ruptured, spilling approximately 48 million gallons of sewage into the

Ala Wai Canal. Declaration of Hugh Barroll at ¶ 15. On May 8, 2007, USEPA and DOH filed

an additional lawsuit against Honolulu for the Clean Water Act violations related to the Beach

Walk Force Main spill (the “2007 lawsuit”). The 2007 lawsuit is also before Judge Ezra. The

USEPA, HDOH and Honolulu simultaneously lodged a proposed Stipulated Order (Exhibit 4 to

the Declaration of Hugh Barroll) which was narrowly tailored to address injunctive relief claims

associated with the Beachwalk Force Main spill. Declaration of Hugh Barroll at ¶ 16. The

Stipulated Order was entered by the Court, over the objections of the Environmental Groups, on

October 10, 2007.2

 See United States et al. v. City and County of Honolulu, CV No. 07-00235

Case 4:08-cv-01461-SBA Document 20 Filed 08/04/08 Page 4 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DEFS.’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOT. TO TRANSFER VENUE TO D. HAW.

C 08-1461 SBA

5

DAE-KSC (D.Haw.). The Court’s Order entering the Stipulated Order is attached as Exhibit 7 to

the Declaration of Hugh Barroll.

In the Stipulated Order, the United States, the State of Hawaii and Honolulu

acknowledged that additional compliance issues needed to be resolved, and that the parties

intended to enter into negotiations to resolve these issues:

 The Parties expressly recognize that the filing of the Complaint limited to these

specific claims and the filing of this Stipulated Order do not resolve and are without

prejudice to other claims of the Governments regarding compliance with the 1995

Consent Decree, the Act, or State law, including, but not limited to, the Governments’

claims for civil penalties with regard to the matters set forth in this Complaint. Following entry of this Stipulated Order, the Parties intend to negotiate in good

faith a comprehensive remedy addressing all compliance issues associated with CCH’s

wastewater system. 

Stipulated Order at 2. The Stipulated Order remains in effect and is under the continuing

jurisdiction of Judge Ezra in the District of Hawaii. Stipulated Order at section XVI. 

In addition to maintaining their independent enforcement action in the 2004 citizen suit

against Honolulu, in 2007, the Environmental Groups intervened in both the 1994 lawsuit and

the 2007 lawsuit. In both cases, the Court adopted recommendations of the Magistrate imposing

conditions on the Environmental Groups’ intervention. The Court’s Order granting the

Environmental Groups’ motion to intervene in the 1994 lawsuit and the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendations setting conditions on that intervention are attached as Exhibit 5 to Declaration

of Hugh Barroll. The Court’s Orders granting the Environmental Groups motion to intervene in

the 2007 lawsuit and to adopt the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations imposing

conditions on intervention are attached as Exhibit 6 to the Declaration of Hugh Barroll. The

Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations as to the motion to intervene in the 2007 lawsuit

are also attached as Exhibit 6 to the Declaration of Hugh Barroll.

On September 18, 2007, the Plaintiff in this action submitted a request pursuant to the

Freedom of Information Act for USEPA records related to the Honolulu’s sewage collection and

treatment system and, in particular, USEPA’s investigations into these facilities discussed above. 

This request was submitted on behalf of Plaintiff by the counsel for the Environmental Groups in

Case 4:08-cv-01461-SBA Document 20 Filed 08/04/08 Page 5 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 The Declaration of JoAnn Cola referenced in this document request referred to

USEPA’s investigations into the Honolulu’s sewage collection system and treatment plants in

2004 and 2005 discussed above. See footnote 2. Ms. Cola is the EPA inspector with primary

responsibility for oversight of Honolulu’s sewage system, and its compliance with the Clean

Water Act. 

DEFS.’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOT. TO TRANSFER VENUE TO D. HAW.

C 08-1461 SBA

6

the 1994, 2004 and 2007 lawsuits. Specifically, the FOIA request sought:

(1) [a]ll documents in EPA’s possession reporting, listing, documenting and/or tabulating

the discharge of raw or partially treated sewage (sometimes referred to as “sanitary sewer

overflows”) from ... Honolulu’s ... sanitary sewer collection system from May 1, 2004

through the final date that EPA searches its records for documents responsive to this

request;

(2) [a]ny Discharge Monitoring Reports (“DMRs”) concerning the discharge of

wastewater from ... [Honolulu’s] ... Sand Island wastewater treatment plant from April

2007 though the final date that EPA searches its records for documents responsive to this

request; and 

(3) [a]ll documents in EPA’s possession documenting, discussing, reporting or otherwise

concerning the comprehensive review of ... Honolulu’s ... wastewater collection system

and the Sand Island and Honoulili waste water treatment plants referred to in paragraphs

6 and 7 of the Declaration of Joann Cola in Support of United States’ Request to Enter

Stipulated Order filed in United States et al. v. City and County of Honolulu, Civ. No.

07-00235 DAE-KSC.3

The Declaration of JoAnn Cola referenced above is attached as Exhibit 8 to the Declaration of

Hugh Barroll.

USEPA released a substantial number of documents pursuant to this FOIA request. 

USEPA is withholding no documents responsive to the second category of documents. 

However, USEPA withheld from release a number of documents responsive to the first and third

categories of documents sought on the grounds that their release would reveal attorney work

product, would reveal attorney-client communications, and/or would interfere with enforcement

proceedings. Documents that would disclose attorney work product or attorney-client

communications are exempt from disclosure pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5. 5 U.S.C. §

552(b)(5). Documents which would interfere with enforcement proceedings are exempt from

disclosure pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7(A). 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). Following an appeal to

USEPA Headquarters, which upheld the decision to withhold the documents at issue here,

Plaintiff filed this action.

Case 4:08-cv-01461-SBA Document 20 Filed 08/04/08 Page 6 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DEFS.’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOT. TO TRANSFER VENUE TO D. HAW.

C 08-1461 SBA

7

III. LEGAL STANDARD.

A motion to transfer venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows a district

court, for the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice, to transfer any

civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought. Because the broad

federal venue statutes often result in inconvenient forums, Congress intended section 1404(a) to

remedy this situation by authorizing the transfer of actions to a more convenient forum. Ferrens

v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516, 522 (1990). Section 1404(a) was designed to protect litigants,

witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense, Van Dusen v.

Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964), and to ensure “systemic integrity and fairness” in the judicial

process, Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 30 (1988), and the “efficient

administration of the court system.” Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 220-21 (7th

Cir. 1989). The decision as to whether transfer is appropriate under 1404(a) “involves subtle

considerations” that are best left to the broad discretion of the district court. Ventress v. Japan

Airlines, 486 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007)(citation omitted).

As a threshold matter, the Court must determine if the action subject to the motion to

transfer “might have been brought” by the Plaintiff in the transferee district (i.e., the district to

which the moving party seeks to transfer the action). Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343-44

(1960). Next, the Court must determine if the transfer would serve “the interest of justice” and

“the convenience of parties and witnesses.” In making this determination, the Court may

consider: (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the parties’ convenience; (3) the witnesses’

convenience; (4) ease of access to the evidence; (5) familiarity of each forum with the applicable

law; (6) the feasibility of consolidation with other claims; (7) any local interest in the

controversy; and (8) the relative court congestion and time to trial in each forum. Jones v. GNC

Franchising, 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000).

The moving party bears the burden of showing that the balance of conveniences weighs

heavily in favor of transfer in order to overcome the strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s

choice of forum. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir.

Case 4:08-cv-01461-SBA Document 20 Filed 08/04/08 Page 7 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 Plaintiff asserts that the documents at issue have some connection to the instant

forum, Opp. Mem. at 4, but does not refute or oppose any of Defendants’ arguments that the

documents concern the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s investigation of Honolulu’s

compliance with the Clean Water Act, which is of direct concern to the citizens of Hawaii, Mot.

at 15-16.

DEFS.’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOT. TO TRANSFER VENUE TO D. HAW.

C 08-1461 SBA

8

1986). But a plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled only to minimal consideration if the operative

facts have not occurred within the forum of original selection and that forum has no particular

interest in the parties or the subject matter of the litigation. Pacific Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence,

403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968).

IV. DISCUSSION.

Plaintiff did not oppose, and therefore conceded, Defendants’ arguments that transfer to

the District of Hawaii would serve the interest of justice, the convenience of parties and

witnesses, and all other relevant factors.4 In fact, Plaintiff expressly waived any objection to

transferring venue as long as jurisdiction would be proper. Opp. Mem. at 5. The only question

Plaintiff raised was whether jurisdiction in the District of Hawaii would be proper. Jurisdiction

would be proper for three reasons: first, jurisdiction is established under the federal question

statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because this FOIA action arises under a law of the United States;

second, the statute Plaintiff relies on, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), is a venue provision, not a

jurisdictional one, and Plaintiff has waived any objection to venue; and third, even if

§552(a)(4)(B) could be said to govern jurisdiction over original actions, Plaintiff’s complaint

qualifies for transfer to the District of Hawaii because the case “might have been brought” as a

crossclaim to an existing action in Hawaii.

A. SECTION 552(a)(4)(B) ESTABLISHES VENUE, NOT JURISDICTION.

Plaintiff argues that § 552(a)(4)(B) grants subject matter jurisdiction rather than venue to

specific district courts, and that the District of Hawaii would not have jurisdiction to hear the

instant FOIA claim under that statute. Although it appears to be an issue of first impression in

Case 4:08-cv-01461-SBA Document 20 Filed 08/04/08 Page 8 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 The Ninth Circuit cases cited by Plaintiff, Opp. Mem. at 3, do not address the

issue raised here. Spurlock v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 69 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 1995),

addressed whether the FBI had to disclose documents that the district court had already

determined to be exempt under FOIA, and did not concern venue at all. Similarly, Cal-Almond

v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, 960 F.2d 105 (9th Cir. 1992), discussed whether the Department of

Agriculture’s lists of almond growers were properly exempt from disclosure under FOIA, and

did not address venue.

Nor did Baizer v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 887 F. Supp. 225 (N.D. Cal. 1995),

address venue. In that case, Judge Smith stated that “[u]nder 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), federal

subject matter jurisdiction in a FOIA case is dependent on a showing that an agency has (1)

‘improperly’ (2) ‘withheld’ (3) ‘agency records.’” Id. at 226-27 (citation omitted). Judge Smith

concluded that Supreme Court opinions stored in an Air Force computer database are not

“agency records” and do not have to be disclosed under FOIA. Id. at 229.

6 28 U.S.C. § 1331 states in its entirety, “The district courts shall have original

jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United

States.”

DEFS.’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOT. TO TRANSFER VENUE TO D. HAW.

C 08-1461 SBA

9

the Ninth Circuit,5

 one district court has expressly analyzed the issue and concluded that in FOIA

cases, jurisdiction is established under 28 U.S.C. § 13316

 because the subject matter presents a

federal question, while venue is established under § 552(a)(4)(B):

Subject matter jurisdiction, venue, personal jurisdiction and service of

process are related but independent concepts and all four requirements must be

satisfied in every case. See 4 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §

1063 at 329 (2002). In the present case, the docket indicates that service of

process and personal jurisdiction have been satisfied. Subject matter

jurisdiction has been established because the FOIA presents a federal

question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Thus, the only remaining question is whether

venue is proper in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

As to venue, the FOIA provides,

On complaint, the district court of the United States in the district in which

the complainant resides, or has principal place of business, or in which the

agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia, has jurisdiction

to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the

production of any agency records improperly withheld from the

complainant.

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).

Section 552(a)(4)(B) is a venue provision statute and not a jurisdiction

conferring statute. Jones v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 654 F.

Supp. 130 (D.D.C. 1987). Venue for an FOIA claim is proper in any district in

which the complainant resides or has its principal place of business, the district in

which the records are situated, or in the District of Columbia. In re Scott, 228

Case 4:08-cv-01461-SBA Document 20 Filed 08/04/08 Page 9 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7 Plaintiff also cites Weber v. Coney, 642 F.2d 91, 93 (5th Cir. 1981), but that case

addressed the question of whether a case was properly transferred between two divisions of the

same district, not, as here, whether a case may be properly transferred between two different

districts.

DEFS.’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOT. TO TRANSFER VENUE TO D. HAW.

C 08-1461 SBA

10

U.S. App. D.C. 278, 709 F.2d 717, 720 (D.C. App. 1983).

O’Neill v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 2007 WL 983143, slip op. at *6 (E.D. Wis. 2007)

(emphasis added).

Consistent with this analysis, district courts within the Ninth Circuit have described

§ 552(a)(4)(B) as a venue provision. For example, this very court stated that “venue is not

proper in this district” when the requirements of § 552(a)(4)(B) were not satisfied because the

plaintiff resided in Kansas and the records were located in Washington, D.C. and Hawaii. Keen

v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997 WL 671711, *1 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (emphasis added). 

Likewise, the district court for the District of Arizona described section 552(a)(4)(B) as “[t]he

FOIA venue provision.” Haswell v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 2006 WL 839067, slip op. at *1

(D. Ariz. 2006) (emphasis added).

In support of its position, Plaintiff cites two cases from the district court for the District

of Columbia decided in the 1980s. See Opp. Mem. at 4.7 More recently, however, that court has

stated that “[u]nder the FOIA venue statute, 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B), venue is always proper in

the District of Columbia.” Boggs v. United States, 987 F. Supp. 11, 18 n.4 (D.D.C. 1997)

(emphasis added). Moreover, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

has characterized the FOIA section as a venue statute in at least two published decisions. See

Lykins v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 725 F.2d 1455, 1462 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (stating that

“Congress explicitly laid venue in FOIA cases” in the courts outlined in § 552(a)(4)(B));

In re Scott, 709 F.2d 717, 720 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (describing § 552(a)(4)(B) as “the applicable

FOIA venue provision”); accord Banks v. Partyka, 2007 WL 2693180, slip op. at *5 (W.D. Okla.

2007) (“Under both FOIA and the Privacy Act, venue is proper in the district where claimant

resides, in the district where agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia.”). These

holdings of the D.C. Court of Appeals and the recent holding of the D.C. district court in Boggs

Case 4:08-cv-01461-SBA Document 20 Filed 08/04/08 Page 10 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DEFS.’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOT. TO TRANSFER VENUE TO D. HAW.

C 08-1461 SBA

11

are entitled to appropriate deference. See Scott, 709 F.2d at 720 (noting that Congress believed

District of Columbia courts had “substantial expertise in working with the FOIA”) (internal

quotations omitted); Matlack, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 868 F. Supp. 627, 630 & n.3 (D. Del. 1994)

(noting that the federal courts in the District of Columbia have “long been on the leading edge”

of interpreting the FOIA). In conclusion, because this FOIA action arises under a federal statute,

jurisdiction is proper in either the Northern District of California or the District of Hawaii.

B. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SECTION 552(a)(4)(B) CONFERS

JURISDICTION OR VENUE, TRANSFER TO HAWAII IS PROPER

BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S FOIA CLAIM COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT

AS A CROSSCLAIM THERE.

Even if § 552(a)(4)(B) was deemed to govern jurisdiction as to original actions filed

under FOIA, original jurisdiction is not required for purposes of transfer. As Defendants

explained in their motion at 11, there are two methods by which a case “might have been

brought” in a district for purposes of transfer: (1) if original jurisdiction would have existed in

the transferee district (citing Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 344 (1960)), or (2) if the case

could have been filed as a claim in an existing action in the transferee district (citing A.J. Indus.,

Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Central Dist. of Cal., 503 F.2d 384, 387 (9th Cir. 1974)). Plaintiff

did not specifically oppose this two-method test in its opposition memo or proffer any law or

argument as to why this test is not good law, and therefore conceded the test. 

Nevertheless, Plaintiff asserts that transfer to Hawaii would be improper because original

jurisdiction could not exist there, stating erroneously that “28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) only allows a

transfers (sic) to district courts where a Plaintiff’s complaint could have originally been filed.” 

Opp. Mem. at 2. Plaintiff offers no legal support for this assertion, which is clearly wrong in

light of the two-method test stated above that is the product of binding Supreme Court and Ninth

Circuit authority. The practical effect of accepting Plaintiff’s assertion would be to eliminate

from the test the second basis for jurisdiction (allowing transfer if a case could have been filed as

a claim in an existing action), thereby overruling controlling Ninth Circuit precedent under A.J.

Indus. This court declines Plaintiff’s attempt to circumvent the Ninth Circuit’s holding in A.J.

Indus. through the back door.

Case 4:08-cv-01461-SBA Document 20 Filed 08/04/08 Page 11 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DEFS.’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOT. TO TRANSFER VENUE TO D. HAW.

C 08-1461 SBA

12

The two-method test remains good law, and under that test, even if original jurisdiction

did not lie in the District of Hawaii under § 552(a)(4)(B), the instant case could have been filed

as a crossclaim in lawsuits commenced in the District of Hawaii by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency in 1994 and 2007 in which OCE intervened. See Mot. at 12. Plaintiff did not

specifically analyze or refute any of Defendants’ arguments as to why OCE could have brought

the instant action as a crossclaim in Hawaii, beyond Plaintiff’s generalized assertion that §

552(a)(4)(B) is a jurisdictional statute.

Finally, § 552(a)(4)(B) nowhere states that the jurisdiction it confers (if any) is conferred

to the exclusion of other federal statutes or rules such as § 1331, § 1404(a), Rule 13(g) (allowing

for crossclaims against a coparty), or Rule 15(d) (allowing for supplemental pleadings). Nor

does Plaintiff cite any case holding this. Thus, even if § 552(a)(4)(B) confers jurisdiction rather

than addresses venue, transfer would still be proper because the instant action could have been

brought as a crossclaim in the District of Hawaii.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue to

the District of Hawaii and ORDERS the clerk of court to transfer this case to the District of

Hawaii.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 8/1/08 __________________________________

HON. SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-01461-SBA Document 20 Filed 08/04/08 Page 12 of 12