Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02227/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02227-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 05:0552fi 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 

___ _..-----·- -----FILED 

FEB 12 2019 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TRAVIS MORGAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner, SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

Case No.: 17cv2227-LAB(KSC) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

"NOTICE OF DEFENDANT'S 

DECEPTIVE ACTIONS AND 

REQUEST [FOR] ENFORCEMENT," 

CONSTRUED AS A MOTION TO 

COMPEL DISCOVERY AND A 

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY 

SANCTIONS 

[Doc. No. 23.] 

24 Plaintiff Travis Morgan, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action 

25 under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") seeking an order compelling disclosure 

26 of administrative records by the Social Security Administration ("SSA"). [Doc. Nos. 1, 

27 6, 8.] Before the Court is a document filed by plaintiff which is entitled "Notice of 

28 Defendant's Deceptive Actions and Request [for] Enforcement." [Doc. No. 23.] In this 

l 7cv2227-LAB(KSC) 

Case 3:17-cv-02227-LAB-KSC Document 39 Filed 02/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
1 Notice, plaintiff complains that he received a deceptive or confusing response to FOIA 

2 Request No. SSA-2017-001116. [Doc. No. 23, at 1.] As a result, he requests that the 

3 Court compel defendant SSA to provide him with a "proper" response to his FOIA 

4 request and impose sanctions against the SSA. [Doc. No. 23, at p. 1.] 

5 Plaintiff cites no legal basis for the relief he requests. Although the basis of 

6 plaintiffs request for relief is unclear, the Court construes his Notice as a Motion to 

7 Compel Discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B) and a Motion for 

8 Discovery Sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5). 1 Under Rule 

9 37(a)(3)(B), "[a] party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, 

10 designation, production, or inspection," but only if a party fails to respond to formal 

11 discovery requests under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 

12 37(a)(3)(B)(i)-(iv). If the Court grants such a motion, it may impose sanctions under 

13 certain circumstances. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii). 

14 Discovery in FOIA cases "is limited because the underlying case revolves around 

15 the propriety of revealing certain documents." Lane v. Department of Interior, 523 F.3d 

16 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 2008). Courts may deny or delay requests for discovery in a FOIA 

17 case, if the plaintiff seeks "the very information that is the subject of the FOIA 

18 complaint." Id. 

19 Based on the record, the Court finds that plaintiff is not entitled to an order 

20 compelling defendant SSA to produce any discovery addressing its response to FOIA 

21 Request No. SSA-2017-001116. To the extent plaintiff wished to clarify confusing or 

22 "deceptive" information provided by defendant in response to his FOIA request [Doc. 

23 No. 23, at 1], he could have served defendant with a formal discovery request as 

24 permitted in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 30, 31, 33, or 34. It appears he could 

25 

26 

27 "A document filed prose is 'to be liberally construed,' and 'a prose complaint, 

28 however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings 

drafted by lawyers .... "' Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 

2 

l 7cv2227-LAB(KSC) 

Case 3:17-cv-02227-LAB-KSC Document 39 Filed 02/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
1 have done so without exceeding the limitations set forth by the Ninth Circuit in Lane v. 

2 Department of Interior, 523 F .3d at 1134. However, there is nothing to indicate plaintiff 

3 ever served defendant with a formal discovery request in this case. As a result, the Court 

4 finds that plaintiff is not entitled to an order compelling defendant to clarify its response 

5 to FOIA Request No. SSA-2017-001116. 

6 The Court also finds there is no basis for the imposition of discovery sanctions 

7 against defendant SSA under Rule 37. Under the circumstances presented, it would be 

8 "unjust" for the Court to impose any sanctions against defendant SSA. Fed.R.Civ.P. 

9 37(a)(5)(A)(iii). 

10 As noted above, the Court has construed plaintiffs "Notice of Defendant's 

11 Deceptive Actions and Request [for] Enforcement" as a Motion to Compel Discovery and 

12 a Motion for Discovery Sanctions. Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 

13 that these Motions are DENIED. [Doc. No. 23.] 

14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

15 Dated: February /"2-, 2019 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

on. aren S. Crawford 

United States Magistrate Judge 

3 

17cv2227-LAB(KSC) 

Case 3:17-cv-02227-LAB-KSC Document 39 Filed 02/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3