Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05055/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05055-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOU LONG LO, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )

JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF )

INVESTIGATION, )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-03-5055 REC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,

GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT

On April 25, 2005, the court heard the parties’ crossmotions for summary judgment and took the motions under

submission. By Order filed on May 23, 2005, the court ordered

defendant to submit to the court for in camera review unredacted

copies of the pages of materials provided to plaintiff pursuant

to his FOIA request and described in the First Amended Complaint

which defendant contends are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5

U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(7)(C) and 552a(j)(2). Defendant complied with

the court’s Order by filing the unredacted documents under seal

Case 1:03-cv-05055-REC -SMS Document 56 Filed 06/10/05 Page 1 of 15
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

1By Stipulation and Order filed on March 8, 2005, the parties

agreed to extend the dates for the filing and hearing of the crossmotions for summary judgment, previously set in the court’s January

13, 2005 scheduling order, because “Plaintiff’s counsel had a

dental emergency and, as a result, is unable to file his moving

papers by the deadline.” The deadline to file the cross-motions

for summary judgment was extended from March 7 to March 14, 2005.

Plaintiff did not file his cross-motion for summary judgment until

March 15, 2005 at 11:45 p.m. Plaintiff did not provide any excuse

for the failure to timely comply with the stipulation and did not

request an extension of time to file the untimely cross-motion for

summary judgment. The United States moves the court to strike

plaintiff’s cross-motion or requests that plaintiff’s cross-motion

otherwise be dismissed. Rule 16(f), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, allows the court to impose such sanctions, see Johnson

v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992).

Mr. Holland has already been warned in this action and in another

action before this court, Yang v. MAGEC, No. CV-F-01-5437 REC, that

he must timely comply with the Local Rules of Practice and that the

failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions.

However, the court will not impose the requested sanctions here

because neither the United States nor the court has been prejudiced

by plaintiff’s untimely cross-motion.

2

for the court’s in camera review.

On April 25, 2005, the court heard the cross motions for

summary judgment filed by the parties.

Upon due consideration of the record and the arguments of

the parties, the court denies plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment and grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment.1

On February 13, 2003, plaintiff Tou Long Lo, represented by

James Holland, filed a First Amended Complaint for Disclosure of

Records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5

U.S.C. §§ 552, 552a. In the FAC, plaintiff alleges that the FBI

has failed to produce 57 pages of materials that were unredacted

and further alleges in Count One in pertinent part: 

11. It is believed and alleged herein, that

the requested records are relevant and

Case 1:03-cv-05055-REC -SMS Document 56 Filed 06/10/05 Page 2 of 15
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

3

probative in proving, in the related case, a

nexus between plaintiff Lo’s status as an

informant and witness for the FBI and DOJ,

and his being prosecuted on bogus criminal

charges at the instance of the police

department about whose City Council Mr. Lo’s

information and testimony pertained ....

...

15. It is plaintiff’s assertion that

plaintiff’s need for quick production of the

materials requested of the defendant ... is

due to a potential, imminent loss of civil

rights in the related case. It is

plaintiff’s assertion that the public

interest embodied in 42 U.S.C. 1985(2)

outweighs countervailing interests defendant

may cite in justification for its failure to

respond or to produce the requested records.

16. It is plaintiff’s further allegation

that the public’s reliance upon law

enforcement agencies use [sic] of cooperating

informants and witnesses, and the consequent

need of those informants and witnesses,

including plaintiff herein, to be able to

protect themselves by civil action as against

retaliation from those about whom they inform

and testify, far outweigh any claim of

exemption that might be made by the defendant

herein. It is plaintiff’s further allegation

that the role of the FBI, first, in

conducting an apparent investigation of

allegations of that a Fresno Police Captain

(now Chief) accepted a $10,000.00 bribe,

while releasing an informant’s identity to a

criminal suspect then under investigation

(Robert Yang), who had sufficient connections

with City and County officials to influence

the filing of retaliatory criminal charges

against the informant (Lo), offers compelling

evidence sufficient to mandate the public’s

interest in production of the requested

information, to confirm or refute the

evidence. The information requested may also

shed light on whether the FBI possesses

information proving the $10,000.00, but has

failed or refused to press the matter.

In Count Two, it is alleged:

Case 1:03-cv-05055-REC -SMS Document 56 Filed 06/10/05 Page 3 of 15
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

4

18. On May 21, 2002, through counsel,

plaintiff issued to the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, Eastern District of

California, a request that duplicated the

substance of plaintiff’s request that was

sent to the United States Attorney ....

19. On September 5, 2002, the FBI produced

some redacted records in response to

plaintiff’s request ....

20. On September 22, 2002, plaintiff

appealed the FBI’s redactions of information

from the documents produced ....

...

23. After a number of phone calls to and

with the FBI and USDOJ FOIA personnel, on

February 4, 2003, counsel for plaintiff

received the FBI’s denial of the appeal ...

The FBI’s 2/04/03 denial of plaintiff’s FOIA

appeal constitutes a final agency action,

allowing plaintiff to bring count two of the

current action. 

24. The same interests that favor production

of the 57 pages referred by the EO US

Attorney, also favor production of the

information redacted from the pages produced

by the FBI.

The FAC prays with respect to Count One that the court order the

FBI to produce to plaintiff the 57 pages of documents in their

entirety and that the court enjoin the FBI from further

withholding from plaintiff, in whole or in part, any of the 57

pages of documents. The FAC prays with respect to Count Two that

the court order the FBI to produce to plaintiff the 25 pages of

redacted documents in their entirety and without redaction and

that the court enjoin the FBI from further withholding from

plaintiff, in whole or in part, any of the documents.

On May 30, 2000, Tou Long Lo filed a Complaint in Tou Long

Case 1:03-cv-05055-REC -SMS Document 56 Filed 06/10/05 Page 4 of 15
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

5

Lo v. Henry Montreal, et al., No. CV-F-00-5813 REC/SMS

(hereinafter referred to as the Related Case). In the Related

Case, plaintiff alleged that he was arrested and prosecuted on

false criminal charges, later dismissed, in a conspiracy of the

City of Fresno, its employees and other non-City employed

defendants. Plaintiff also alleged that he was charged and

prosecuted on the false charges because of his status as a

cooperating informant for the FBI and as a witness for the United

States Attorney’s Office in the investigation of bribery and

other misuses of charitable organizations regarding the proceeds

from the Hmong New Year celebration held annually in Fresno among

members of the Fresno City Council and various Hmongs, including

Robert Yang. The court entered a default against Robert Yang. 

By Orders filed on April 17, 2003, the court granted summary

judgment for all remaining defendants in this action in

connection with the Third Amended Complaint, the court ruling

that the action was barred by the applicable statute of

limitations. Plaintiff filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit but

that appeal was dismissed because the claims against Robert Yang

had not been disposed of by this court. By Order filed on

February 4, 2004, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for default

judgment against Robert Yang on the ground that this action had

been dismissed against the other defendants as barred by the

statute of limitations and that a default judgment against Robert

Yang would result in logically inconsistent adjudications as to

liability. The court directed entry of judgment for defendants,

Case 1:03-cv-05055-REC -SMS Document 56 Filed 06/10/05 Page 5 of 15
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

6

which judgment was entered. Plaintiff again filed an appeal to

the Ninth Circuit. However, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the

appeal for failure to prosecute in May, 2004.

Following the final judgment against plaintiff in the

Related Case, the United States moved to dismiss this FOIA action

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending that the FOIA

action is moot to the extent that the First Amended Complaint

seeks unredacted records under FOIA for use in the Related Case. 

In denying this motion to dismiss, the court ruled in its Order

filed on November 12, 2004 in pertinent part as follows:

Plaintiff concedes that this action is moot

to the extent that the Amended Complaint

seeks the unredacted records under FOIA for

use in the related case. 

However, plaintiff argues, the allegation in

paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint

pertaining to the role of the FBI in

conducting an investigation of the taking of

a bribe by Fresno Police Captain Dyer while

releasing plaintiff’s identity to Robert Yang

is a justification for the release under FOIA

of the redacted records that does not depend

upon the continued viability of the related

case.

The United States asserts that plaintiff’s

reliance upon paragraph 16 is made for the

first time in his opposition to this motion

and notes that the parties agreed at the June

9, 2003 scheduling conference that the ruling

on the appeal in the related case would

obviate the issues in this case. The United

States represented at oral argument that

plaintiff stated at the scheduling conference

that he wanted to go public or to publish a

book and, therefore, needed the documents and

that Magistrate Judge Snyder gave plaintiff

leave to amend to include these claims. 

However, the United States notes, plaintiff

did not amend.

Case 1:03-cv-05055-REC -SMS Document 56 Filed 06/10/05 Page 6 of 15
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

7

Plaintiff admitted at oral argument that

Magistrate Judge Snyder gave him leave to

amend. However, plaintiff stated, he opted

to rely on paragraph 16 as presently pleaded

to support other grounds for the FOIA

request. 

The United States further notes that

plaintiff does not identify in his opposition

precisely what is the second justification

for the production of the unredacted records

and contends that paragraph 16 merely alleges

a reason why the unredacted records should be

released for use in the related case. The

United States contends that a reading of the

entirety of paragraph 16 makes it

“unquestionable that Plaintiff’s sole purpose

in and the basis for requesting release of

the un-redacted copies of the records was for

use as evidence in the related action.” The

United States notes that plaintiff’s FOIA

requests attached as exhibits to the First

Amended Complaint make clear that plaintiff

sought the unredacted records for use in the

related action and that plaintiff articulated

no other justification for release.

At oral argument, plaintiff contended that

the second half of paragraph 16 references

the testimony of defendant Montreal in the

related action regarding the bribe and

references matters beyond discovery in the

related action. Plaintiff stated that, once

the related action was dismissed, he began to

think of other reasons to disclose the

information independent of the related case.

The court cannot conclude from this record

that this action is now moot because of the

disposition of the related case. The court

concludes that plaintiff is entitled to

proceed with the FOIA claim to the extent

that it seeks production of records the role

of the FBI in conducting an investigation of

allegations of that a Fresno Police Captain

accepted a $10,000.00 bribe but failed or

refused to press the matter.

FOIA provides in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) that the Freedom of

Information Act does not apply to matters that are

Case 1:03-cv-05055-REC -SMS Document 56 Filed 06/10/05 Page 7 of 15
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

8

records or information compiled for law

enforcement purposes, but only to the extent

that production of such law enforcement

records or information ... (C) could

reasonably be expected to constitute an

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy ....

5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2) provides in pertinent part:

The head of any agency may promulgate rules

... to exempt any system of records within

the agency from any part of this section ...

if the system of records is -

(2) maintained by an agency or

component thereof which performs as its

principal function any activity pertaining to

the enforcement of criminal laws, including

police efforts to prevent, control, or reduce

crime or to apprehend criminals ... and which

consists of ... (B) information compiled for

the purpose of criminal investigation,

including reports of informants and

investigators, and associated with an

identifiable individual; or (C) reports

identifiable to an individual compiled at any

stage of the process of enforcement of the

criminal laws from arrest or indictment

through release from supervision. 

The FOIA mandates a policy of broad disclosure of government

documents when production is properly requested. 5 U.S.C. §

552(a)(3). An agency may withhold a document, or portions of a

document, only if the information contained in the document falls

within one of the nine statutory exemptions to the disclosure

requirement set forth in Section 552(b). The burden is upon the

government agency to establish that a given document is exempt

from disclosure. Bowen v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 925

F.2d 1225, 1226 (9th Cir. 1990). However, “[u]nlike the

disclosure provisions of FOIA, its statutory exemptions ‘must be

narrowly construed.’” Lion Raisins v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,

Case 1:03-cv-05055-REC -SMS Document 56 Filed 06/10/05 Page 8 of 15
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

9

354 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2004). In satisfying its burden of

establishing that requested documents are exempt from disclosure,

the agency may rely on affidavits submitted by its agents. The

agency is not required to specify its objections to disclosure in

such detail as to compromise the secrecy of information. If the

affidavits contain reasonably detailed descriptions of the

documents and allege facts sufficient to establish an exemption,

the district court need look no further. Id. at 1227. The

district courts have discretion to order in camera inspection of

the actual documents the government wishes to withhold. 5 U.S.C.

§ 552(a)(4)(B). As noted, the court ordered defendant to submit

unredacted copies of the documents at issue for in camera review.

With regard to a claimed exemption under Section

552(b)(7)(C), i.e., that disclosure of law enforcement records

“could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted

invasion of personal privacy”, the Supreme Court in Dept. of

Justice v. Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. 749 (1989), explained the

approach to be taken:

Our previous decisions establish that whether

an invasion of privacy is warranted cannot

turn on the purposes for which the request

for information is made. Except for cases in

which the objection to disclosure is based on

a claim of privilege and the person

requesting disclosure is the party protected

by the privilege, the identity of the

requesting party has no bearing on the merits

of his or her FOIA request ....

Thus whether disclosure of a private document

under Exemption 7(C) is warranted must turn

on the nature of the requested document and

its relationship to ‘the basic purpose of the

Case 1:03-cv-05055-REC -SMS Document 56 Filed 06/10/05 Page 9 of 15
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

10

Freedom of Information Act “to open agency

action to the light of public scrutiny.”’

..., rather than on the particular purpose

for which the document is being requested. 

In our leading case on the FOIA, we declared

that the Act was designed to create a broad

right of access to ‘official information.’

... 

...

This basic policy of ‘”full agency disclosure

unless information is exempted under clearly

delineated statutory language,”’ ... indeed

focuses on the citizens’ right to be informed

about ‘what their government is up to.’ 

Official information that sheds light on an

agency’s performance of its statutory duties

falls squarely within that statutory purpose. 

That purpose, however, is not fostered by

disclosure of information about private

citizens that is accumulated in various

governmental files but that reveals little or

nothing about an agency’s own conduct. ....

...

Both the general requirement that a court

‘shall determine the matter de novo’ and the

specific reference to an ‘unwarranted’

invasion of privacy in Exemption 7(C)

indicate that a court must balance the public

interest in disclosure against the interest

Congress intended the exemption to protect. 

489 U.S. at 771-773, 776. 

Plaintiff asserts that he is not seeking by his motion for

summary judgment to obtain the redacted information concerning

the names and other personal information about the witnesses and

informants in the redacted pages. Plaintiff only discusses the

application of Exemption 7(C) to FBI special agents and

employees. 

As explained in Lissner v. U.S. Customs Service, 241 F.3d

Case 1:03-cv-05055-REC -SMS Document 56 Filed 06/10/05 Page 10 of 15
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

11

1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit held in pertinent

part with regard to the privacy interest of government officials:

It is true that individuals do not waive all

privacy interests in information relating to

them simply by taking the oath of office, ...

but by becoming public officials their

privacy interests are somewhat reduced. See

Lesar v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 636

F.2d 472, 487 (D.C.Cir. 1980)(‘In their

capacity as public officials FBI agents may

not have as great a claim to privacy as that

afforded ordinarily to public citizens, but

the agent by virtue of his official status

alone does not forego altogether any privacy

claim in matters related to official

business.’). We intimated as much in

Dobronski v. Fed. Communications Comm’n, 17

F.3d 275, 279 (9th Cir. 1994), where we

recognized that a government employee’s

privacy interests may be diminished to the

extent it might disclose ‘official

misconduct.’ 

Therefore, the FBI special agents whose names were redacted

from the reports of the criminal investigation provided to

plaintiff under FOIA have a privacy interest in their identities

except to the extent that the requested information might

disclose official misconduct.

With regard to the public interest in disclosure, as noted,

the scope of plaintiff’s FOIA request is now limited to the

production of records pertaining to the role of the FBI in

conducting an investigation of allegations of that a Fresno

Police Captain accepted a $10,000.00 bribe but that the FBI

failed or refused to press the matter.

It is noted that the absence of evidence that any misconduct

occurred does not preclude disclosure under FOIA. “While ‘the

Case 1:03-cv-05055-REC -SMS Document 56 Filed 06/10/05 Page 11 of 15
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

12

public interest in ensuring the integrity and reliability of

government investigation procedures is greater where there is

some evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the government

official,’ ... ‘[n]othing in the statutory command [of the FOIA]

conditions agency compliance on the requesting party showing that

he has knowledge of misfeasance by the agency.’ ....” Lissner,

supra, 241 F.3d at 1223. 

Plaintiff’s request for the names of the FBI Special Agents

who conducted the interviews described on the redacted documents

is limited to the names of those agents. There is no other

personal information concerning the special agents described on

those documents. It is arguable that plaintiff’s FOIA request,

as now limited, weighs in favor of the public interest because it

seeks to disclose misfeasance by a federal law enforcement

officer in failing or refusing to investigate an allegation of

corruption against a police officer in the context of a wider

investigation of official corruption. However, the court

concludes that the name of an FBI agent conducting a particular

interview fails to “shed[] light on an agency’s performance of

its statutory duties” in the absence of any indication that that

interview involved allegations of Dyer taking a bribe and the FBI

failing to investigate the allegations. In any event, from the

court’s in camera review of the unredacted documents, and as

averred by Special Agent Callihan, there is absolutely nothing in

the redacted portions of any of those documents that pertain to

any interview by FBI agents involving allegations of Dyer taking

Case 1:03-cv-05055-REC -SMS Document 56 Filed 06/10/05 Page 12 of 15
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

13

a bribe and the FBI failing to investigate the allegations. 

Plaintiff also asserts that Fresno Police Department

officers and non-profit corporations have limited privacy

interests under Exemption 7(C):

When acting as public officials, [Fresno

Police Department officers] do not enjoy a

right to shield from the public’s presumptive

right to information that sheds light on an

agency’s performance of its statutory duties,

the statutory purposes of FOIA, by claiming

they have a right to privacy even when acting

in their official capacities as public

officials, performing their employing

agency’s duties.

Finally, the same is also true for non-profit

corporations that may be mentioned in the

records. Such organizations are subject to

the Brown Act and/or California Public

Records Act, because of the public interest

in their operation embodied in their taxexempt status.

On balance, most of the persons and/or

entities that likely [sic] to be referenced

in the records sought, have limited privacy

interests because either they are employees

of public, governmental agencies or entities

whose records are subject to mandatory pubic

disclosure.

While plaintiff may be correct that municipal police

officers and state non-profit organizations have a more limited

privacy interest under the FOIA, the court concludes that

disclosure of the names or personal information of any of these

persons or entities will demonstrate official misconduct on the

part of the FBI. Again, from the court’s in camera review of the

unredacted documents, there is absolutely nothing in the redacted

portions of any of those documents that pertain to any interview

Case 1:03-cv-05055-REC -SMS Document 56 Filed 06/10/05 Page 13 of 15
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

14

by FBI agents involving allegations of Dyer taking a bribe and

the FBI failing to investigate the allegations. 

Plaintiff asserts that Henry Monreal’s deposition testimony

establishes that an FBI interview on the topic of the alleged

bribe accepted by Dyer occurred and contends that Special Agent

Callihan “fails to explain how it is that such an interview took

place, but was not documented, especially given the detailed

level of documentation of other interviews the FBI agents

conducted that were produced in redacted form.” In Papa v.

United States, 281 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2002), the Ninth

Circuit stated:

Defendants correctly cite authority for the

proposition that the production of all

nonexempt material, ‘however belatedly,’

moots FOIA claims. The problem for

defendants is that they have cited nothing in

the record certifying that all the records in

existence that must be produced have been

produced. The affidavits on which defendants

rely merely state certain documents were

produced; they do not detail the methods used

to search for the documents and never state

that all documents have been produced. 

Affidavits justify summary judgment only when

they are ‘relatively detailed and

nonconclusory.’ 

Plaintiff relies on this statement in contending that Special

Agent Callihan’s declarations do not suffice to meet this burden:

Mr. Callihan’s declaration does not certify

that all the records in existence that must

be produced have been produced. Mr. Callihan

does not detail the methods used to search

for documents; in fact, his later discovery

of 17 pages of documents that had earlier

been ‘inadvertently omitted’ ... tends to

show that there exist some gaps in whatever

the methodology was that was used to identify

Case 1:03-cv-05055-REC -SMS Document 56 Filed 06/10/05 Page 14 of 15
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

15

the responsive documents in the first

instance.

However, the FAC requests that the court order the United

States to disclose all of the described pages described in the

FAC without redaction. There is no allegation in the FAC that a

document exists that has not been produced under the FOIA. The

same is true with respect to plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment. It is only in plaintiff’s opposition to the United

States’ motion for summary judgment that he contends that not all

documents requested to be produced have not been produced because

of Monreal’s deposition testimony. As noted above, plaintiff was

given the opportunity to further amend the FAC and declined to do

so. The court will not entertain plaintiff’s claim at this

juncture given this circumstance.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for

defendant. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05055-REC -SMS Document 56 Filed 06/10/05 Page 15 of 15