Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04992/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04992-8/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

On October 11, 2007, the court heard oral argument

regarding plaintiff’s FOIA request, filed in 2003. Plaintiff

asserted that his request had not been fulfilled, while defendants

asserted that they had turned over everything they could reasonably

provide. On October 12, 2007, the court revoked the appointment of

the trial master because he had failed to "expedite the conclusion

of these proceedings." Doc #66 at 1. In an attempt to clarify the

issues, the court ordered plaintiff to specify precisely which

portions of his FOIA request had not been satisfied. Doc #66.

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 147 Filed 04/14/08 Page 1 of 9
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

In lieu of rehashing the details of the case, the court

recounts only what is absolutely necessary to decide the pending

motion. The court has determined previously in this case that

although the summary judgment standard in FOIA cases is not welldeveloped, the court must use the ordinary summary judgment

standard in this relatively unique case. Doc #44. Accordingly,

“summary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact

is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable

jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v

Liberty Lobby, 477 US 242, 248 (1986). “If the party moving for

summary judgment meets its initial burden of identifying for the

court the portions of the materials on file that it believes

demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, the

nonmoving party * * * must produce at least some ‘significant

probative evidence tending to support the complaint.’” TW Electr

Serv, Inc v Pacific Electr Contractors Assn, 809 F2d 626, 630 (9th

Cir 1987), quoting First National Bank v Cities Serv Co, 391 US

253, 290 (1968). In FOIA cases, “the court may forego [sic]

discovery and award summary judgment on the basis of affidavits

which are relatively detailed, non-conclusory, and apparently

submitted in good faith in the absence of any significant basis

presented by the plaintiff for questioning their reliability.” 

Shurberg Broadcasting of Hartford, Inc v FCC, 617 F Supp 825, 831

(DDC 1985); Gardels v CIA, 689 F2d 1100, 1106 (DC Cir 1982);

Halperin v CIA, 629 F2d 144, 148 (DC Cir 1980).

In this case, plaintiff’s basic contentions are that

defendants failed to provide some data that plaintiff requested and

that some data turned over were “corrupt.” Plaintiff makes these

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 147 Filed 04/14/08 Page 2 of 9
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

assertions in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment

and in his own cross-motion for summary judgment. The latter

motion was noticed improperly in violation of the local rules and

is, therefore, denied. That denial although based on a procedural

misstep works no substantive harm to plaintiff as all his arguments

appear to have been made in opposition to defendants’ summary

judgment motion and considered in that context. In any event,

because defendants’ affidavits have made a “relatively detailed,

non-conclusory” showing of compliance with plaintiff’s requests,

the burden rests with plaintiff to produce “significant probative

evidence” that defendants have not, in fact, complied. Shurberg,

617 F Supp at 831; TW Electrical, 809 F2d at 630. Although the

matter is not free from some doubt due to the abstruse nature of

plaintiff’s claims and defendants’ response, it appears that

plaintiff has failed to make the required showing. 

I

First, plaintiff claims he does not yet have a valid copy

of the so-called TIR data. The data exist in both “coded” and

“decoded” versions. Plaintiff prefers the coded format, but

apparently he will accept either. The court surmises - although

the parties’ submissions are unclear - that once defendants provide

either the coded or decoded data, then the TIR FOIA request is

fulfilled. Defendants believe they have sent the TIR data in both

“coded” format and “decoded” format. Plaintiff responds that the

“coded” as well as the “decoded” data defendants have sent him are

“corrupted.” It is unclear what plaintiff means when he says the

data are “corrupted.”

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 147 Filed 04/14/08 Page 3 of 9
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

4

 The court apprehends that if defendants produce properly

requested information in a format that has been recast in some

fashion to make it undecipherable, the response would be improper

and the information “corrupt.” This appears to be plaintiff’s

contention. Information that is maintained in a format that the

requester cannot discern because of his own limitations would not

merit the “corrupt” characterization. It would thus appear,

therefore, if the requested information is produced in the manner

and format in which the agency maintains it, that response should

not be deemed inadequate unless the requester can show that its

unreadability is the product of some action by the agency.

The “decoded” data that are relevant here include data in

what is referred to as “Segment M.” Plaintiff claims Segment M is

corrupted because he cannot read it. Plaintiff claims he cannot

read the data because Segment M does not “match” the “record

layout,” which is a file that allows someone to interpret the

Segment M data. Because the two sets of data do not “match,”

plaintiff believes there is a “data error.” More specifically,

plaintiff asserts that each datum in Segment M ends with letters,

whereas each corresponding datum in the record layout ends with

numbers. Doc #122 at ¶77; Doc #125 at ¶17. This causes an error

because both should end in numbers, and plaintiff claims he cannot

read the data in Segment M. Defendants dispute that there is a

data error; in support of that assertion, defendants offer a

declaration from a technician that responds to plaintiff’s

letters/numbers problem and states the following: “Mr Snyder is

incorrect. There is no data error here and the file does adhere to

the record layout.” Doc #122 at ¶78. 

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 147 Filed 04/14/08 Page 4 of 9
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

5

The “coded” version is called “Segment V.” It is unclear

why plaintiff cannot read that data. From the best the court can

tell, Segment V is unreadable because plaintiff believes the data

in “Segment H,” “Segment K” and “Segment W” are “corrupt.” 

Specifically, plaintiff claims that “Segment H” includes “extra

spaces” which prevent him from viewing the data. He claims also

that “Segment K” and “Segment W” include “pipe characters” which

prevent him from viewing the data. [One of defendants’ technical

experts declares that the problem is in Segment W, whereas a

different government technical expert declares that the problem is

in Segment K. Compare Doc #122 at ¶68, with Doc #124 at ¶20. That

discrepancy introduces confusion but does not appear material.] 

According to defendants’ submissions, the “pipe characters” problem

may have been solved. Doc #122 at ¶70; Doc #124 at ¶20; Doc #125

at ¶12. As for the “extra spaces” in Segment H, defendants state

that they do not see any extra spaces in the data, and thus

defendants aver that Segment H is not corrupt. Defendants’

position seems to be that because plaintiff has not complained to

them about the extra spaces since July 2007, the problem is moot. 

Doc #124 at ¶24; Doc #122 at ¶70. 

If it is true that both issues with the “coded” data are

in fact solved, then the Segment V file should not be corrupt. 

Again, the parties were not clear, but as far as the court can

tell, if the Segment V file is not corrupt, then plaintiff does not

need the Segment M data and the FOIA request is fulfilled.

Plaintiff has not stated with any specificity that either

the “pipe characters” or “extra spaces” are still a problem. 

Instead, he says merely that the “NSN item text description” data

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 147 Filed 04/14/08 Page 5 of 9
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

6

are corrupt. The court is unable to discern from plaintiff’s vague

statement a material disputed issue, especially with respect to

Segment V. Because plaintiff has not offered any significant or

meaningful contradictory evidence that defendants have not complied

with his request, the court must find that summary judgment for

defendants is appropriate. 

Because plaintiff’s FOIA request for TIR data is

satisfied by receipt of a valid copy of either the Segment M data

or the Segment V/H/K/W data and defendants have appeared to have so

complied - or perhaps, more precisely, plaintiff has not shown a

lack of compliance - summary judgment for defendants is

appropriate. 

II

Second, plaintiff claims that he has not received certain

“BSM data” for “solicitations over $100,000.” 

The parties do not dispute that defendants have not

provided the BSM data for solicitations over $100,000. Instead,

defendants argue that they should be excused from compliance.

Defendants assert that the requested data are not

available in a format that can be delivered to plaintiff. 

Defendants argue that the only way to fulfill the FOIA request is

to create a new data file. This new file must be created by

scanning multiple existing large files and extracting the relevant

BSM data. Defendants contend that they would need to write a

special software program to perform this “extract” function;

defendants assert that to create the software program would require

108 man-hours at a total cost of $5400. 

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 147 Filed 04/14/08 Page 6 of 9
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

7

Plaintiff refuses to pay the $5400 because he claims that

it is completely unnecessary to “extract” any data from anything. 

If any “extraction” needs to be done, then plaintiff wants

defendants to send him the underlying data so that plaintiff can

“extract” whatever he sees fit in the manner he sees fit. 

Plaintiff claims that his original FOIA papers requested exactly

that. Plaintiff claims he requested the source BSM data as those

data exist on defendants’ computer system, in whatever format that

may be. As the court interprets plaintiff’s argument, and by way

of analogy to the world of journalism, plaintiff argues that he

would rather see the entire AP and Reuters newswires and decide for

himself what to read rather than watch the nation’s top stories on

CNN. Plaintiff appears to believe the matter is that simple. 

Defendants contend that government databases do not operate that

way, the source data cannot be simply copied and given to plaintiff

and the relevant data must be extracted first. See Doc #127 at

3:17-19. 

The question is then whether new computer programs are

actually necessary to produce the data. The trial master

questioned the necessity of these new computer programs in his

second report. Doc #105 at 7:7:22. Based on his own technical

experience, the trial master expected the data to reside in a file

within the BSM system. Doc #105 at 7:9-10. Therefore, the trial

master suggested that defendants should simply produce that file. 

Doc #105 at 7:11-12. The trial master, relying on his own

technical experience, stated that extracting data sometimes

requires unjustifiable time and cost, but that computers today

should be “equipped with sophisticated data-base software and/or

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 147 Filed 04/14/08 Page 7 of 9
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

8

generalized query utilities, like SQL. To extract selected data

from a file and to define a few keys could take MINUTES, rather

than HOURS, and certainly not DAYS.” Doc #105 at 7:15-22. 

The trial master appointed in this case was attempting to

resolve this precise dispute. Doc #141 Exh 3; Doc #126 Exh 3. In

a series of exchanges with defendants’ counsel right up until his

involvement with the case ended, he inquired why defendants needed

to write a new software program. The trial master resolved certain

points of confusion and made at least some progress in resolving

this matter, and he believed that plaintiff was correct and that

defendants’ proposed extraction software program was unnecessary. 

Defendants did not contact plaintiff and attempt to build

on the discussions with the trial master, and they submit no

declarations rebutting the trial master’s belief that defendants’

proposed extraction software program is unnecessary to fulfill the

FOIA request. Still, the trial master’s statements that he did not

comprehend defendants’ assertion that a new software program is

necessary do not amount to a reasonable denial of defendants’

position. See Doc #126 Exh 3. Plaintiff has offered only

conclusory speculation rather than “contradictory evidence.” 

Halperin, 629 F2d at 148. 

It appears that compliance with plaintiff’s request

requires an extraction of data that defendants are unable to

accomplish absent the preparation of new software. Plaintiff thus

appears to have the choice of tendering the funds necessary to do

so or foregoing the extracted data. Having failed to offer to pay

for the cost of the extraction software, summary judgment for

defendants appears in order. 

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 147 Filed 04/14/08 Page 8 of 9
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

9

III

Third, defendants claim that they have solved the problem

that existed with the so-called “non-NSN” data. Plaintiff does not

dispute that the problem has been solved. Instead, plaintiff

complains that defendants delayed in fixing the problem. This

complaint is insufficient to defeat defendants’ motion for summary

judgment. Summary judgment is granted as to the “non-NSN” data.

IV

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The

clerk is directed to close out the file and terminate all pending

motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 147 Filed 04/14/08 Page 9 of 9