Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02204/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02204-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 EDWARD WRIGHT JR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL TOBACCO

FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 09-2204 CRB

ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Richard Wright seeks an order compelling Defendant Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) to turn over certain documents pursuant

to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). ATF moves for summary judgment, arguing

that it has already satisfied its statutory obligations. ATF produced one document in

response to Plaintiff’s request, but Plaintiff maintains that its search was inadequate. 

Plaintiff’s grounds for this belief are purely speculative, and are therefore insufficient

to overcome the evidence that ATF conducted a diligent search, reasonably calculated to lead

to responsive documents. Because ATF’s search was reasonable, and Plaintiff presents no

evidence to the contrary, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a prisoner in California state prison. On May 19, 2009, he filed pro se 

Case 3:09-cv-02204-CRB Document 20 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 4
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

complaint in this Court against ATF arising out of his earlier FOIA request, which had

sought production of documents pertaining to the firing pin of a particular weapon. That

weapon had been manufactured by a single company approximately twenty-five years ago. 

See Graham Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. A. According to ATF, its Disclosure Division determined that

any responsive records would be contained in ATF’s “Technical and Scientific Services

Record System.” Graham Decl. ¶ 16. ATF therefore referred Plaintiff’s request to ATF’s

Office of Enforcement Programs and Services, Firearms Technology Branch (“FTB”). Id.

Upon its receipt of Plaintiff’s request, FTB conducted a search of what it determined to be

the relevant database. Id. ¶ 6. 

The search retrieved only one relevant document. While ATF originally determined

that this document was exempt from FOIA’s disclosure obligations, after Plaintiff filed his

administrative appeal ATF chose to disclose the document with certain exempt information

redacted. Id. ¶ 8, ex. F. 

While Plaintiff does not object to the redaction of the document, he argues that there

must be more documents in ATF’s possession. In particular, he argues that he “has acquired

verifiable proof, that the ATF stores ‘records’ of [firing pin] imprints in one major database

that is interconnected with several other databases on the national, state and local level, that

is operated by the ATF. That database is known as the National Integrated Ballistic

Information Network (NIBIN).” Opp. at 3. Plaintiff contends that ATF should have

searched this database.

DISCUSSION

Under FOIA, a district court may “enjoin [an] agency from withholding agency

records and . . . order the production of any agency records improperly withheld.” 5 U.S.C. §

522(a)(4)(B). Where the plaintiff asserts that the government agency has failed to disclose

all relevant documents, Rule 56 requires the agency to submit an affidavit outlining the

details of the search it conducted. Nation Magazine v. United States, 71 F.3d 885, 890 (D.C.

Cir. 1995). 

///

Case 3:09-cv-02204-CRB Document 20 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 4
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

“To win summary judgment on the adequacy of a search, the agency must

demonstrate beyond material doubt that its search was reasonably calculated to uncover all

relevant documents.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). The agency is not required to search

every record system, but rather to use “methods reasonably expected to produce the

information requested.” Oglesby v. Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990). In judging the

adequacy of a search, a court may rely on sufficiently detailed affidavits submitted by the

agency. Zemansky v. E.P.A., 767 F.2d 569, 572 (9th Cir. 1985). Once a sufficiently detailed

affidavit has been presented to a court, “the plaintiff must make a showing of bad faith on the

part of the agency sufficient to impugn the agency’s affidavits or declarations . . . .” Carney

v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir. 1994). However, “hypothetical assertions

are insufficient to raise a material question of fact with respect to the adequacy of the

agency’s search.” Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 67 n.13.

In this case, the Government has submitted sufficiently detailed affidavits. John R.

Spencer, the Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch of the ATF, explains in his affidavit

that his office maintains files that include “technical reference files covering technical

aspects of firearms; lists of firearms manufacturers and importers; lists of firearms which

have been tested for importation; an inventory of weapons parts, and correspondence and

statement files.” Green Decl., ex. 2 ¶ 5. In response to Plaintiff’s request, his office

“conducted a search of the MILVETS Technology Services document retrieval system for all

responsive documents, “ which contains “those documents which relate to firearm

classifications, technical questions and responses, legal memos, reports of technical

investigations, opinion papers, technical files, correspondence, and firearm industry

brochures.” Id. ¶ 6. Spencer further avers that this search produced only one responsive

document, which was ultimately turned over to plaintiff.

Plaintiff, however, argues that the Government should have conducted a different

search. He claims that he “has acquired verifiable proof, that the ATF stores ‘records’ of

[firing pin] [sic] imprints in one major database that is interconnected with several other

databases on the national, state and local level, that is operated by the ATF. That database is

Case 3:09-cv-02204-CRB Document 20 Filed 02/18/10 Page 3 of 4
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

G:\CRBALL\2009\2204\Order Granting Summary Judgment.wpd 4

known as the NATIONAL INTEGRATED BALLISTIC INFORMATION NETWORK

(NIBIN).” Opp. at 3. Plaintiff claims that it was unreasonable for the ATF not to search this

database.

However, Plaintiff has failed to submit evidence to support the conclusion that this

database contains the information he seeks. For instance, Plaintiff cites to a series of cases

in which a court relied in part, or at least mentioned, some technical aspect of a firearm

related to the subject of his request. See Opp. at 4-5. None of these cases, however, suggests

that the database identified by Plaintiff contains information regarding the firing pin of the

weapon in question. Indeed, none of these cases mentions anything related to the weapon’s

firing pin. Similarly, Plaintiff’s reference to “hypothetical scenarios” provides no evidentiary

support for his conclusion that the NIBIN database contains the information he seeks. 

Indeed, it is unclear how Plaintiff believes inclusion of these “scenarios” aids his case.

Ultimately, Plaintiff’s objection to ATF’s search is founded solely on his speculation

as to what ATF “must” have. However, agency affidavits reflecting a reasonable and

thorough search “cannot be rebutted by purely speculative claims about the existence and

discoverability of other documents.” SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. S.E.C., 926 F.2d 1197, 1200

(D.C. Cir. 1991). 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is hereby

GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02204-CRB Document 20 Filed 02/18/10 Page 4 of 4