Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00024/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00024-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Review Agency Decision

---

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 1

 The Court has dispensed with a hearing on the motion to compel

because oral argument would not aid the decisional process.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

National Lending Group, L.L.C., et

al., 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Michael B. Mukasey, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-0024-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery (doc.

#31). Having considered the parties’ memoranda, the Court finds that the motion

should be denied in its entirety.1

First, the Court concludes that the defendants are not required to provide

the documents sought by the plaintiffs’ requests numbered 1-8, the documents

related to other Arizona licensees, because the plaintiffs have not cited the Court

to any legal authority that establishes that the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b),

does not preclude the disclosure of these documents, they have not established

that they diligently sought an order from the Court permitting the disclosure of the

Case 2:07-cv-00024-PGR Document 42 Filed 11/15/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

 The Court finds the plaintiffs’ failure to cite to any case law at all in

support of their various legal arguments to be inexplicable given that they have

the burden of persuading the Court that their motion should be granted under the

governing law. Particularly troubling to the Court is the plaintiffs’ failure to make

any effort in their reply to controvert the case law cited by the defendants in their

opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion.

 The Court notes that it has considered the plaintiffs’ reply memorandum

notwithstanding that the length of that memorandum violated LRCiv 7.2(e).

- 2 -

documents at issue, and they have not provided any legal authority establishing

that the requested documents are relevant to this action given the factual and

legal conclusions adopted by the defendants for their denial or revocation of the

licenses at issue.2

Second, the Court concludes that the defendants are not required to

provide the documents sought by the plaintiffs’ request number 9, the documents

related to the ATF’s criminal and investigative files on 14 named individuals,

because the plaintiffs have not met their burden of providing legal authority

establishing that they are entitled to the requested documents notwithstanding

the non-disclosure requirements of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b), the

plaintiffs have not provided any legal authority controverting the authorities cited

by the defendants in support of their contention that the requested disclosures

would violate various types of disclosure limitations imposed by the wellrecognized qualified law enforcement privilege, and (3) the plaintiffs have not

provided any legal authority establishing that they are entitled to obtain the

documents under any other legal theory, including that of waiver.

Third, the Court concludes that the defendants are not required to provide

the documents sought by the plaintiffs’ request number 11, the documents related

to the ATF’s internal policies, procedures, and guidelines, because the plaintiffs

Case 2:07-cv-00024-PGR Document 42 Filed 11/15/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

 The Court will enter an order setting the hearing on the cross-motions

for summary judgment after the briefing on the motions is completed.

- 3 -

have not provided any legal authority supporting their contention that the law

enforcement privilege is not applicable to the ATF because it should be

considered to be a regulatory agency and not a law enforcement agency, and

because the plaintiffs have not cited to any legal authority controverting the legal

authority cited by the defendants that supports their contention that any failure on

the part of the ATF to follow its own policies and procedures does not have any

legal relevance to this action because those policies and procedures do not have

the force and effect of law. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General of the United

States, is substituted as a defendant pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d)(1) in place of

Alberto R. Gonzales.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery

(doc. #31) is denied in its entirety.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall file their motion for

summary judgment no later than December 21, 2007, that the defendants shall

file their combined response/cross-motion for summary judgment no later than

January 22, 2008, the plaintiffs shall file their combined reply/response no later

than February 11, 2008, and the defendants shall file their reply no later than

February 22, 2008.3

DATED this 14th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00024-PGR Document 42 Filed 11/15/07 Page 3 of 3