Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01831/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01831-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daniel Saul Coven, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV-07-1831-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

United States Office of )

Personnel Management, )

)

Defendant. ) )

Four motions are currently pending before the court: (1)

plaintiff pro se Daniel Saul Coven’s motion for partial summary

judgment (doc. 13); (2) plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery

(doc. 23); (3) plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction

(doc. 31); and (4) plaintiff’s motion for a stay (doc. 53). All

four of these motions are readily disposable - the first two

because they have been withdrawn; the third because plaintiff has

not met his burden of proof and the fourth because it is unopposed. 

I. Withdrawn Motions

 As just noted, plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary

judgment and a motion to compel discovery. In replying to each of 

Case 2:07-cv-01831-RCB Document 55 Filed 01/12/09 Page 1 of 5
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 -

those motions, however, plaintiff expressly withdrew them. As to

the motion for partial summary judgment, plaintiff sought

“withdrawal . . . without prejudice.” Reply (doc. 47) at 1. As to

the motion to compel, in his Reply, plaintiff simply “withdr[e]w

th[at] motion.” Reply (doc. 48) at 1. In light of these

withdrawals, the court DENIES as moot plaintiff’s motions for

partial summary judgment and to compel discovery. 

II. Preliminary Injunction Motion

On June 5, 2008, the court stayed the present action pending

notification from the defendant, the United States Office of

Personnel Management (“OPM”), as to “whether or not plaintiff has

exhausted his administrative remedies.” Doc. 24 at 1:22-23. The

court granted OPM 90 days in which to provide such notification. 

While that stay was still in effect, plaintiff filed a motion

for a preliminary injunction (doc. 31), seeking to compel OPM’s 

compliance with a January 3, 2008, FOIA request. OPM’s response is

two-fold. First, denial is mandated because plaintiff is “seeking

to compel compliance with a FOIA request that is not the subject of

this litigation.” Resp. (doc. 32) at 1 (emphasis added). More

specifically, the FOIA request which is the subject of this action,

as specified in plaintiff’s complaint filed on September 25, 2007,

is for “electronic files that detail the current employment

announcement of vacancies as listed on [OPM’s] usajobs.gov and

studentjobs.gov websites.” Co. (doc. 1) at 3:20-22. As just noted,

however, the preliminary injunction pertains to a FOIA request made

after the commencement of this action. Further, it differs from

the FOIA request which is the subject of this action in that it 

seeks “copies of the data feed that are being provided to the

Case 2:07-cv-01831-RCB Document 55 Filed 01/12/09 Page 2 of 5
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 -

Google Base service[,]” not the electronic files just described. 

Mot. (doc. 31) at 213-14. Second, OPM asserts that the court

should deny plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction

“without prejudice pending the resolution of the stay[]” because

this motion violates the court’s earlier stay order. Resp. (doc.

32) at 2:9. 

 On September 9, 2009, OPM timely notified the court and

plaintiff of its “belie[f] [that] Plaintiff ha[d] exhausted his

administrative remedies sufficiently to proceed with briefing the

remaining issues in this case.” See Status Rep. (doc. 36) at 1. 

This notification lifted the court’s prior stay order, and

correspondingly renders moot OPM’s argument that plaintiff’s

preliminary injunction motion should be denied because it violates

that order.

Nonetheless, the court finds that plaintiff is not entitled to

a preliminary injunction. In the first place, as set forth above,

he is seeking an injunction for a FOIA request which is not the

subject of this litigation. Moreover, in order to obtain a

preliminary injunction in the Ninth Circuit the “moving party must

show either (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and

the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious questions

going to the merits are raised, and the balance of hardships tips

sharply in favor of the moving party.” Mattel, Inc. v. Greiner and

Hausser GmbH, 354 F.3d 857, 869 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). 

Plaintiff did not identify upon which standard he is basing his

motion, must less explain how he has met that standard. For both

of these reasons, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for a

preliminary injunction (doc. 31). 

Case 2:07-cv-01831-RCB Document 55 Filed 01/12/09 Page 3 of 5
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 -

III. Stay Motion

On October 2, 2008, OPM filed a motion for summary judgment

(doc. 38). Plaintiff responded and cross-moved for summary

judgment (doc. 44). Two days after OPM filed its response to that

cross-motion, on December 17, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion to

stay (doc. 53). He seeks a stay “to request another administrative

review by OPM’s General Counsel on the matter of FOIA processing

fees.” Mot. (doc. 53) at 1. In addition, plaintiff is seeking an

extension of time in which to file his reply in connection with his

cross-motion for summary judgment. In particular, plaintiff

requests that he have “until 30 days after [OPM’s] General Counsel

responds and serves their response on the administrative review[]”

in which to file and serve his reply. Id. at 3:708. 

On January 5, 2009, OPM filed a “Response (Non-Opposition) to

Motion to Stay[.]” Doc. 54 at 1. OPM “does not oppose [this]

[m]otion to [s]tay . . . including extending [plaintiff’s] Reply to

OPM’s Response to Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

until 30 days after the Office of General Counsel decides his

appeal regarding the fee estimate.” Id. Primarily because OPM

does not oppose this stay, but also because a stay would be in the

interests of justice, the court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s motion

for a stay (doc. 53), including his request for an extension of

time in which to file his reply, as specified above. 

In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (doc. 13)

is DENIED without prejudice;

(2) plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (doc. 23) is

DENIED;

Case 2:07-cv-01831-RCB Document 55 Filed 01/12/09 Page 4 of 5
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 -

(3) plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (doc. 31)

is DENIED; and

(4) plaintiff’s motion for a stay (doc. 53) is GRANTED 

including extending plaintiff’s time to file and serve his reply to

OPM’s response to his cross-motion for summary judgment until 30

days after the OPM’s Office of General Counsel decides plaintiff’s 

appeal regarding the fee estimate.

DATED this 12th day of January, 2009.

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

Case 2:07-cv-01831-RCB Document 55 Filed 01/12/09 Page 5 of 5