Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04992/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04992-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD SNYDER,

Plaintiff,

v

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE et al,

Defendants. /

No C-03-4992 VRW

ORDER

In this highly technical FOIA case, the court designated

P Michael Robson to serve as trial master and to make factual

findings regarding two issues related to plaintiff Richard Snyder’s

FOIA request. Master Appoint (Doc #65-1). On September 8, 2005,

the court overruled the government’s objections and adopted the

trial master’s findings of fact pursuant to FRCP 53. Doc #84.

On September 21, 2005, Snyder filed a “motion for summary

judgment for the Total Item Record (TIR) file and the missing (BSM)

information.” Doc #85 at 1. Snyder asked the court to issue its

final order requiring defendant, inter alia, to provide uncorrupted

versions of the files that plaintiff had requested.

//

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 98 Filed 08/09/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The government opposed the motion and filed a

counter-motion for summary judgment, contending that a “recent

re-transmission of the [relevant] file to plaintiff” renders this

case moot and “it is now clear that the file plaintiff previously

received was the precisely [sic] the information the government

possessed.” Doc #87 at 2. The government also provided detailed

instructions for Snyder to access the relevant files. See Doc #90

(Francis Decl).

At a December 8, 2005, hearing, Snyder stated that he had

not followed the steps in the Francis declaration. Doc #97

(December 8, 2005, Transcript), at 6:21-23. Accordingly, the court

ordered Snyder “to practice the steps contained in the Francis

declaration [to obtain the information from the BSM website] and

then report [the results] to the court” and ordered defendants to

submit a declaration indicating the TIR file was provided in binary

and wrap format. Id at 2:15-3:7, 7:1-3, 17:19-22. 

Snyder then submitted a declaration stating “information

[was] missing from the BSM system that [was] part of the original

FOIA request,” Doc #94 (Snyder Decl), ¶ 3, “[n]one of the other

missing pieces of information requested in the FOIA request were on

the website as claimed,” id, ¶ 17, “[and the TIR] file as sent by

the defendant was not wrapped,” id, ¶ 18. The government submitted

declarations stating “the TIR file transmitted to [Snyder was] the

same as the file that [was] stored by the government in its

computer,” Doc #95 (Greger Decl), ¶1, and “the information sought

by [Snyder was] available on the website, even if not in the

specific form he now is requesting,” Doc #96 (Francis Decl), ¶1. 

The remaining dispute between the parties appears to implicate

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 98 Filed 08/09/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

technical questions that the court would not be able to decide

without some assistance.

Since the filing of these declarations, the parties have

not filed anything in this case. Cognizant that the parties’

motions for summary judgment remain under submission, the court

ORDERS the parties to submit a written status report to the court

by September 8, 2006, describing whether the underlying issues in

this litigation have been resolved and what action, if any, remains

for the court to take. If any dispute remains, the court also

ORDERS the parties to SHOW CAUSE why Special Master Robson should

not be appointed again to determine whether the government has

complied with the court’s mandate requiring submission of the FOIA

requests, with all costs to be borne by the party found responsible

for the delay in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 98 Filed 08/09/06 Page 3 of 3