Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00180/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00180-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL F. SCHULZE., 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 vs. 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 

DRUG ENFORCEMENT 

ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES 

MARSHALS SERVICE and DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, 

 

 

 Defendants. 

 

1:05-cv-00180-AWI-GSA 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION AND RENEWED MOTION 

TO HOLD FBI’s MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN 

ABEYANCE 

Doc.#’s 143 & 149 

Currently before the court are the motion and renewed motion of plaintiff pro se Michael 

F. Schulze (“Plaintiff”) to hold the motion for summary judgment of defendant Federal Bureau 

of Investigation (“FBI”) in abeyance pending an order of this court directing FBI to file a more 

complete Vaughn index. The court will deny this motion because the substantive issues present 

in FBI’s motion for summary judgment and in Plaintiff’s motion to hold in abeyance – whether 

the Vaughn index that has been produced to Plaintiff by FBI contains sufficient information to 

allow a decision on FBI’s reliance on exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 

(“FOIA”) – are the same. To put the matter simply, FBI has produced a document that FBI 

contends is an index containing sufficient information to allow the court to make the 

determination whether FOIA exemptions apply to prevent the release of additional information 

Case 1:05-cv-00180-AWI-EPG Document 150 Filed 09/29/15 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

27

28

-2-

A

to Plaintiff. FBI has moved for summary judgment based on the contention that the index it 

submitted is adequate to show whether the claimed FOIA exemptions should apply and that 

those exemptions do apply as a matter of law that that Plaintiff is therefore entitled to no 

additional information under FOIA. This is the motion FBI has placed before the court and the 

court must rule on this motion and deny the motion for summary judgment before Plaintiff can 

claim an entitlement to any more detailed information. 

So far as the court is aware, there is no “recipe” for a Vaughn Index, nor does the word 

“Vaughn” imply anything more than the authority under which the Index is required. Plaintiff is 

has argued and cited authority for his contention that FBI is obliged to produce an index that 

proceeds page-by-page to describe the contents of each page that are subject to exclusion under 

one or more of the FOIA exemptions. FBI has provided legal argument and authority for their 

contention that a page-by-page analysis is not necessary. At this point it appears to the court that 

the parties have argued their respective positions on the matter and it is up to the court to 

determine whether FBI is entitled to summary judgment or not based on the sufficiency or 

insufficiency of the index they have submitted. The court cannot hold the matter in abeyance 

and require FBI to file and serve an index more in line with Plaintiff’s expectations unless and 

until the court first rules that the index that was submitted is legally insufficient to establish that 

FOIA exemptions are applicable; that is, unless and until the court first denies FBI’s motion for 

summary judgment. 

To the extent that Plaintiff may feel that there is more to be said in opposition to FBI’s 

motion for summary judgment, the court will delay the filing of a decision on FBI’s motion for 

summary judgment until fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this order. Any further 

opposition Plaintiff wishes to file in opposition to FBI’s motion for summary judgment will be 

considered up until that date. 

 THEREFORE, for the reasons discussed above, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s 

motions to hold in abeyance are thereby DENIED. 

Case 1:05-cv-00180-AWI-EPG Document 150 Filed 09/29/15 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

27

28

-3-

A

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 28, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-00180-AWI-EPG Document 150 Filed 09/29/15 Page 3 of 3