Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01218/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01218-2/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

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

This is a Freedom of Information Act case brought by Plaintiff Billie Mertes against the 

United States Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). 

On December 18, 2019, a scheduling order was entered in which a briefing schedule for 

cross-motions for summary judgment was established. See Doc. No. 11. Pursuant to the 

scheduling order, the IRS was to file its motion for summary judgment on February 18, 2020, 

Plaintiff was to file her motion on March 19, 2020, and both motions would be heard on May 4, 

2020. See id.

On February 18, 2020, the IRS filed a motion for summary judgment that was supported 

by heavily redacted exhibits. See Doc. No. 14. The IRS contends that 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) 

(“Exemption 7”) applies to defeat Plaintiff’s FOIA request. Also on February 18, 2020, the IRS 

filed a motion for in camera review. See Doc. No. 15. The motion requests that the Court accept 

in camera unredacted evidence and additional declarations that will establish the applicability of 

Exemption 7. See id. The IRS explains that publicly establishing the applicability of Exemption 7 

will have the effect of publicly disclosing the protected information, which defeats the entire 

purpose of Exemption 7. 

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the request for in camera review on February 28, 2020.

BILLIE MERTES,

Plaintiff

v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Defendant

CASE NO. 1:19-CV-1218 AWI SKO

ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING 

ORDER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR IN 

CAMERA REVIEW, and ORDER 

VACATING MAY 4, 2020 HEARING

(Doc. Nos. 11, 14, 15)

Case 1:19-cv-01218-AWI-SKO Document 17 Filed 03/02/20 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

The IRS’s request for in camera review has significant consequences. The IRS essentially 

concedes that its motion for summary judgment as filed is insufficient. Further, Plaintiff’s 

opposition raises a valid point regarding her ability establish her entitlement to the disputed 

records or undercut the IRS’s reliance on Exemption 7, if the Court permits in camera review. 

Given the pending issues, the Court finds that the scheduling order is not workable. While 

the Court believes that cross-motions for summary judgment are an appropriate mechanism for 

resolving a FOIA case, the IRS’s motion has created a significant wrinkle. The Court finds that 

the best way forward at this point is to resolve the request for an in camera review first. The 

Court will set a new briefing schedule for this motion. Once the in camera issue is resolved, the 

Court will either set a new briefing schedule or order the parties to submit a stipulation for a new 

briefing schedule. Furthermore, because the resolution of the in camera issue will affect the IRS’s 

motion for summary judgment, the Court will administratively deny the IRS’s pending summary 

judgment motion without prejudice to refiling after the in camera issue has been resolved.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The December 18, 2019 scheduling order is VACATED;

2. The May 4, 2020 cross-motions hearing date is VACATED;

3. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 14) is administratively DENIED 

without prejudice;

4. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this order, Defendant may file a supplemental 

motion for in camera review;1

5. Within fourteen (14) days of service of the supplemental motion for in camera review, 

Plaintiff shall file a response/opposition; 

6. Within ten (10) days of service of Plaintiff’s response/opposition, the Defendant shall file a 

reply; and

1 The supplemental motion should include citation to relevant authorities and may raise additional issues as may be 

relevant. One additional issue which shall be included is whether the redacted documents/evidence could be filed 

under seal.

Case 1:19-cv-01218-AWI-SKO Document 17 Filed 03/02/20 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

7. If, after reviewing the supplemental briefing, the Court determines that a hearing is 

necessary, then the Court will issue a separate order setting a hearing date at that time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2020 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01218-AWI-SKO Document 17 Filed 03/02/20 Page 3 of 3