Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04992/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04992-7/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

Plaintiff seeks relief under the Freedom of Information

Act (FOIA) for the alleged failure of Department of Defense and

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to release information he has

requested. Based on the highly technical dimensions of this FOIA

case, the court reappointed P Michael Robson to serve as trial

master and determine whether the government has complied with

plaintiff’s request and, if it has not, to set forth what the

government must do to attain compliance. Doc #101. 

//

//

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 109 Filed 03/27/07 Page 1 of 11
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

On January 9, 2007, trial master Robson submitted his

report. Doc #105. Plaintiff filed a timely motion to adopt the

findings of the trial master, Doc #106, and the government filed an

objection to the report on January 29, 2007, Doc #107. For reasons

discussed below, the court OVERRULES the government’s objection and

ADOPTS the trial master’s findings of fact pursuant to FRCP 53.

I

Plaintiff is a stockholder and employee of Total

Procurement Systems, Inc (TPS), which is “in the business of

providing Government procurement information.” Snyder Decl (Doc

#30). From the parties’ papers, the court understands this to mean

that TPS gathers information from various sources, primarily within

the government and repackages the data for sale to businesses

seeking government contracts. Apparently in connection with this

activity, plaintiff initiated the FOIA requests at issue here.

As described in plaintiff’s complaint, he requested “BSM

information,” Compl (Doc #1) ¶¶4-6, “TIR information,” id ¶¶7-10,

and the “Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code file,” id

¶¶11-16. According to DLA’s FOIA officer, Susan Salus, “BSM”

refers to “Business Systems Modernization, * * * a multi-year

information technology project designed to re-engineer and upgrade

DLA’s legacy logistics system”; and “TIR” refers to the “Total Item

Record.” Salus Decl (Doc #27) ¶3, 5. The court understands this

computer-encoded data to be relevant to government contracting. 

Plaintiff claims that the BSM and TIR information has been withheld

in violation of FOIA. 

//

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 109 Filed 03/27/07 Page 2 of 11
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

In the typical FOIA lawsuit, the government agency has

refused to produce the requested information. The situation here

with respect to the BSM and TIR information is somewhat different. 

Plaintiff requested the BSM information on August 18, 2003. Salus

Decl (Doc #27) ¶3; Compl (Doc #1) ¶4. After some intervening

events not relevant here, plaintiff took an administrative appeal

and DLA sent plaintiff a letter on October 14, 2003, explaining

that the data he sought were available on DLA’s web site. Salus

Decl (Doc #27) ¶4; Compl (Doc #1) ¶6; id Ex 3 (October 14, 2003,

letter). Plaintiff contends that the BSM information from the

DLA’s web site is incomplete or corrupted. Snyder Decl (Doc #30)

¶14.

Likewise, plaintiff requested the TIR information on

August 18, 2003. Salus Decl (Doc #27) ¶5; Compl (Doc #1) ¶7. 

After intervening events that included an administrative appeal, a

computer file allegedly containing the TIR information was sent to

plaintiff on September 24, 2003, and DLA’s FOIA office considered

the request satisfied. Salus Decl (Doc #27) ¶5; Compl (Doc #1)

¶10, Ex 5. While Salus insists there was no communication with her

office regarding the TIR information after September 24, 2003,

Salus Decl (Doc #27) ¶5; Supp Salus Decl (Doc #28) ¶5, plaintiff

asserts that he communicated with Salus by voicemail on October 10,

2003, expressing his dissatisfaction with the TIR information

provided to him, Snyder Decl (Doc #30) ¶24. As with the BSM

information, plaintiff contends the TIR information that the

government sent to him was not formatted as he expected it to be 

(i e, it was corrupted). Id ¶15.

//

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 109 Filed 03/27/07 Page 3 of 11
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

On April 13, 2003 and June 17, 2004, the parties filed

cross-motions for summary judgment. Pl Mot (Doc #14); Defs Opp

(Doc #31); Pl Reply (Doc #33); Defs Mot (Doc #18) (renoticed by Doc

#26); Pl Opp (Doc #29). In these motions, the parties offered

multiple and conflicting explanations for plaintiff’s troubles. 

Such disputes included whether the data are in fact corrupt, how

they became corrupt and whether a lack of technical sophistication

on plaintiff’s part is to blame for his troubles. Ultimately, the

court concluded that the corruption question constituted a material

dispute of fact that logically preceded a determination whether the

government has or has not transmitted to plaintiff certain

components of the BSM and TIR data. Doc #44. With respect to the

BSM and TIR data, the court observed that the issues require an

intimate understanding of the computer files’ creation,

transmission and interpretation -- a factual issue the court was

unable to resolve on the summary judgment papers. Id. 

In view of the technical complexity of these issues, the

court designated P Michael Robson to serve as trial master and to

make factual findings regarding two issues related to plaintiff’s

FOIA request. Master Appoint (Doc #65-1). Specifically, the trial

master was appointed to make findings of fact on the following

issues:

(1) Whether defendants provided to plaintiff (or

directed him to a website containing) a corrupt or

incomplete computer file and refused to provide the

BSM system file as requested in plaintiff’s August

18, 2003, FOIA request.

(2) Whether defendants provided to plaintiff a corrupt

or incomplete file in response to his September 17,

2003, FOIA request for the TIR file.

Id at 2:23-28. 

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 109 Filed 03/27/07 Page 4 of 11
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

On July 25, 2005, the court received a report

containing the trial master’s findings on these issues. Master Rep

(Doc #75). Regarding the first issue, the trial master found that

plaintiff “validly established his claim that the BSM system [file]

supplied to him was incomplete.” Id at 4:23-24. On the second

issue, the trial master concluded that plaintiff had “established

his claim that the TIR file was corrupt.” Id at 5:23-24. 

Plaintiff filed a timely motion to adopt the findings of the trial

master. Doc #78. The government filed an objection to the trial

master’s findings on August 15, 2005, arguing that the trial master

adopted unreasonable procedures and made substantively erroneous

factual findings. Obj Master (Doc #79). 

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. In doing so, the court noted

that any shortcoming in the trial master’s procedures stemmed from

the government’s failure to cooperate with the trial master. Doc

#84. The government, for example, did not provide the trial master

with the information he requested, namely a copy of the TIR file. 

Master Rep (Doc #75) at 5:20-21. According to the trial master,

the government never provided a straight answer whether the missing

BSM information was on the government’s computer system. Id at

4:18-22. The trial master also noted that the government’s answers

to his queries “tended to be delayed and [circumlocutious];” indeed

he chided the government for being “less than forthright” in its

responses. Id at 3:4-6.

On September 21, 2005, plaintiff filed a “motion for

summary judgment for the Total Item Record (TIR) file and the

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 109 Filed 03/27/07 Page 5 of 11
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

missing (BSM) information,” requesting the court to issue its final

order requiring the government, inter alia, to provide uncorrupted

versions of the files that plaintiff had requested. Doc #85 at 1. 

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 that it

was “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

plaintiff to access the relevant files. See Doc #90 (Francis

Decl).

At a December 8, 2005, hearing, plaintiff admitted that

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

(December 8, 2005, Transcript), at 6:21-23. The court thus ordered

plaintiff “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 the government

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. 

Plaintiff 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 [sic] 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 [plaintiff was] the same as the file that [was] stored by the

government in its computer,” Doc #95 (Greger Decl), ¶1, and “the

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 109 Filed 03/27/07 Page 6 of 11
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

information sought by [plaintiff was] available on the website,

even if not in the specific form he now is requesting,” Doc #96

(Francis Decl), ¶1. 

On August 9, 2006, after a period of inactivity in the

case, the court ordered the parties to submit a written status

report by September 8, 2006, describing whether the underlying

issues in the dispute had been resolved. Doc #98. If disputes

remained, the order instructed the parties to show cause why trial

master Robson should not be appointed again to determine whether

the government had complied with the court’s mandate requiring

submission of the FOIA requests. Id. 

Plaintiff and the government submitted their status

reports on September 8 and September 12, 2006, respectively. Doc

##99, 100. Although neither report clarified the issues, they both

demonstrated that disputes remain. Accordingly, the court

reappointed trial master Robson with the following instructions:

determine whether the government has complied with

the court’s mandate requiring submission of the

FOIA requests. If the government is not in

compliance, the court instructs the special master

to describe why the government’s efforts to date

are insufficient and to set forth what the

government must do to attain compliance. 

Doc #101 at 3:13-18. On January 9, 2007, trial master Robson

submitted his report. Doc #105. Plaintiff filed a timely motion

to adopt the findings of the trial master, Doc #106, and the

government filed an objection to the report on January 29, 2007,

Doc #107.

It is worth mentioning that throughout this litigation

the court has strongly encouraged the parties to direct their

energies at alternative dispute resolution -- such as arbitration

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 109 Filed 03/27/07 Page 7 of 11
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

before a technically sophisticated arbitrator -- because a

litigated resolution would likely consume considerable resources. 

The parties, alas, rejected the court’s call for ADR; hence, the

court turns to the merits of this case once again.

II

To prevail in a FOIA suit, 5 USC § 552(a)(4)(B) provides

that a plaintiff must show “that an agency has (1) ‘improperly’;

(2) ‘withheld’; (3) ‘agency records.’ Even though these

requirements are labeled “jurisdictional,” they are in practice the

merits of the FOIA suit. Judicial authority to devise remedies and

enjoin agencies can only be invoked, under the jurisdictional grant

conferred by § 552, if the agency has contravened all three

components of this obligation.” Kissinger v Reporters Committee

for Freedom of the Press, 445 US 136, 150 (1980). Two of the three

Kissinger elements are obviously undisputed: The information at

issue is in the possession of a government agency, and, as there

has been no assertion of a FOIA exemption, any withholding would be

improper. Thus the only issue is whether information has been

withheld. 

In a FOIA case, “[t]he trial is held in US District Court

with the district court judge as the trier of fact. There is no

provision for a trial by jury under the FOIA.” Litigation under

the Freedom of Information Act, 50 Am Jur Trials 407, § 34. Under

FRCP 53(a)(1)(B), the court may appoint a master to “hold trial

proceedings and make or recommend findings of fact on issues to be

decided by the court without a jury.” Rule 53 is thus properly

invoked in a FOIA case.

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 109 Filed 03/27/07 Page 8 of 11
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

As discussed above, the court has already adopted the

trial master’s first report, thereby finding that (1) “the BSM

system [file] supplied to [plaintiff] was incomplete,” Doc #75 at

4:23-24, and (2) “the TIR file was corrupt.” Id at 5:23-24. With

these factual findings in mind, the court turns to the trial

master’s second report, which the court reviews de novo. See FRCP

53(g)(3). 

The government asserts that the court should reject the

trial master’s findings because (1) it would require “unjustifiable

time and cost” to create the BSM file that plaintiff requests and

(2) it would require special procedures to wrap the TIR file. Doc

#107. 

Both of the government’s arguments are misplaced. The

nature and amount of fees to be assessed in responding to a FOIA

request have no bearing on whether agency records have been

“withheld.” See 5 USC § 552(a)(4)(B). Absent exceptional

circumstances, release of information is required unless it falls

under one of nine statutory exemptions set forth in 5 USCS §

552(b). Needless to say, the prospect of compliance expenses is

not one of those exceptions, especially considering the average

cost per request approached $1,000 in 2006. See DOJ, FOIA Report

for Fiscal Year 2006. Indeed, the government’s theory — that costs

exempt compliance — would undercut the entire FOIA regime. 

To be sure, costs are not irrelevant, but the FOIA

statute plainly contemplates this issue: “each agency shall

promulgate regulations, pursuant to notice and receipt of public

comment, specifying the schedule of fees applicable to the

processing of requests under this section and establishing

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 109 Filed 03/27/07 Page 9 of 11
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

10

procedures and guidelines for determining when such fees should be

waived or reduced.” 5 USC § 552(a)(4)(A)(i). These fees are

limited to “the recovery of only the direct costs of search,

duplication, or review.” 5 USC § 552(a)(4)(A)(iv). Hence, the

government may assess costs after providing the relevant agency

records. Yet these procedures do not absolve the government of its

duty to comply with plaintiff’s request. Accordingly, the

government’s objection is once again OVERRULED and the court adopts

the trial master’s findings of fact pursuant to FRCP 53.

Additionally, in the court’s order for the parties to

show cause why trial master Robson should not be appointed again,

the court noted that the costs of the second report would “be borne

by the party found responsible for the delay in this case.” Doc

#98. In his second report, trial master Robson observed: 

Whenever I put questions to the plaintiff, I

received answers promptly. In the same vein, the

plaintiff promptly mailed me his court-ordered

status report as requested.* * * By contrast, when

I put questions to the [government] the answers

were often delayed. * * * [A]lthough [the

government] did supply the TIR file once during

this period, that transmission appeared to be

flawed and the [government] was never able or

willing to retransmit.

Doc #105 at 4:4-15. The trial master’s experience is not

surprising; as the court previously concluded with respect to the

first report, “any perceived shortcoming in the trial master’s

procedures stems from the government’s failure to cooperate with

the trial master.” Doc #84 at 3:28-4:2. Accordingly, the court

concludes that the government is responsible for the delay in this

case and shall bear the cost incurred by the trial master in

connection with the second report.

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 109 Filed 03/27/07 Page 10 of 11
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

11

III

Having established the government’s legal requirements,

the court turns to crafting a remedy. Because the enforcement

procedure under FOIA is by injunction, the jurisdiction conferred

is one in equity. The court, therefore, retains broad discretion

to establish a remedy in accordance with fairness and efficiency. 

A cursory review of the present record makes clear that the court

must closely oversee any injunction it issues in order to ensure

compliance, as the parties have displayed a marked unwillingness to

cooperate in this dispute.

Accordingly, on April 30, 2007, or at such other time as

the parties may arrange with the courtroom deputy, Ms Cora Klein,

415-522-2039, the court HEREBY ORDERS: 

(1) Before 10:00 am, the government shall transfer (a)

the “set aside” information extracted from the BSM

file and (b) the TIR file in wrapped format and

uncorrupted. Both of these files should conform to

the directions set forth in the second trial

master’s report. (2) Upon transfer, trial master Robson shall inspect

the files on plaintiff’s computer. At 1:30 pm that

day, trial master Robson shall advise the court

clerk by email or phone whether the government has

complied with the trial master’s second report. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 109 Filed 03/27/07 Page 11 of 11