Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02654/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02654-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Right to Privacy 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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ex rel. EDMUND G. BROWN, ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AND TRAFFIC 

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION; and OFFICE OF

MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,

Defendants. ___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 06-2654 SC

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AS IT RELATES TO

DOCUMENTS 8, 9, AND

31 

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is the unresolved portion of the Motion for

Summary Judgment brought by Defendants National Highway and

Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"), Department of

Transportation ("DOT"), and the Office of Management and Budget

("OMB") (together "Defendants"). See Docket Nos. 33, 53. 

On May 8, 2007, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for

Summary Judgment, granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

in part, reserved judgment as to Documents 8, 9, and 31, and

Case 3:06-cv-02654-SC Document 55 Filed 06/12/07 Page 1 of 5
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

ordered OMB to submit those Documents to the Court for in camera

inspection. See Docket No. 53. OMB submitted the documents to

the Court on May 22, 2007. See Docket No. 54. For the following

reasons, after reviewing the three documents, the Court hereby

GRANTS Defendants' Motion as it relates to Documents 8, 9, and 31. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

 Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with

the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to

any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. The Deliberative Process Exemption

OMB withheld Documents 8, 9, and 31 based on exemption 5 of

the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), which allows an agency to

withhold "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters

which would not be available by law to a party other than an

agency in litigation with the agency." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). 

The burden of proving that specific documents are exempt is

on OMB. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); Maricopa Audubon Soc'y. v.

U.S. Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1997). The Ninth

Circuit has stated:

To qualify for exemption 5 under the "deliberative

process" privilege, a document must be both (1)

"predecisional" or "antecedent to the adoption of agency

policy" and (2) "deliberative," meaning "it must

actually be related to the process by which policies are

Case 3:06-cv-02654-SC Document 55 Filed 06/12/07 Page 2 of 5
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

1 Documents 3-9 on the Vaughn index appear to be a chain of

email messages, each of which includes the text of the previous

messages in the reply.

3

formulated."

Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 861 F.2d 1114, 1117

(9th Cir. 1988). Where, as here, the government agency fails to

sustain its burden through affidavits, the district court may

order in camera inspection of the documents in question. See Lion

Raisins, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 354 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th

Cir. 2004); Maricopa Audubon Soc'y, 108 F.3d at 1093 n.2.

B. Documents 8 and 9

Documents 8 and 9 are exempt from production. Both documents

contain email messages authored by OMB staff members, discussing

draft regulations. See Kim Decl. Ex. A at 16. Both documents are

predecisional. They were prepared prior to the final publication

of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy ("CAFE") rule in the Federal

Register on April 6, 2006. See id.; Morall Decl. ¶ 4. Further,

both are deliberative, in that they discuss changes to the

proposed regulations. As indicated in Defendants' Vaughn index,

Document 9 includes Document 8, which includes Documents 3-7.1

See Kim Decl. Ex. A at 15-16. Plaintiffs do not challenge that

Documents 3-7 fall within exemption 5. See P's Mot. for Summary

J.; P's Opp'n to D's Mot. for Summary J. (Docket Nos. 41, 47). 

The Court therefore focuses its inquiry on the final communication

in each document. Each is a message from one OMB staff member to

another, discussing the status of the draft regulations. 

Disclosure of the contents of these documents could expose OMB's

Case 3:06-cv-02654-SC Document 55 Filed 06/12/07 Page 3 of 5
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

decision-making process "in such a way as to discourage candid

discussion within the agency." See Maricopa Audubon Soc'y, 108

F.3d at 1094-95 (quoting Assembly of the State of Cal. v. U.S.

Dep't of Commerce, 968 F.2d 916 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

C. Document 31

Document 31 is also protected by exemption 5. This document

is an August 25, 2005 email message sent by an OMB staff member

discussing the reactions of various stakeholders to the proposed

regulation. See Kim Decl. Ex. A at 25. As it was prepared prior

to the entry of the final CAFE regulation, it is predecisional. 

See Morall Decl., ¶ 4. Document 31 is also deliberative. Based

on the description of Document 31 in Defendants' Vaughn index,

Plaintiff suggests that the document contains only "factual

information conveyed to agency staff" and therefore cannot qualify

for the exemption. See P's Opp'n at 7. Although the description

on the Vaughn index lacks detail, this is excusable, as Defendants

are not required to disclose on that index the very information

they are trying to protect. See, e.g., Wolfe v. Dep't of Health &

Human Servs., 839 F.2d 768, 771 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1988)(en banc);

Maricopa Audubon Soc'y, 108 F.3d at 1093 ("Indeed, we doubt the

agency could have introduced further proof without revealing the

actual contents of the withheld materials."). The discussion of

stakeholder reactions in Document 31 includes opinions about the

significance of the reactions, opinions about what stakeholders

might do or say, and what effect those reactions may have on the

pending draft regulation. Disclosing this information would

almost certainly expose OMB's decision-making process, which

Case 3:06-cv-02654-SC Document 55 Filed 06/12/07 Page 4 of 5
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

exemption 5 is meant to protect. See Maricopa Audubon Soc'y, 108

F.3d at 1094-95.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants'

Motion for Summary Judgment as it relates to Document Nos. 8, 9,

and 31. The parties shall bear their own costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2007

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02654-SC Document 55 Filed 06/12/07 Page 5 of 5