Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04365/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04365-1/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

For the Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OUR CHILDREN'S EARTH FOUNDATION, 

et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES 

SERVICE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 14-4365 SC 

Case No. 14-1130 SC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART CROSS-MOTIONS 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

I. INTRODUCTION

 Now before the Court are cross-motions for partial summary 

judgment in this Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") case. ECF 

Nos. 12 ("Mot."), 17 ("Opp'n & Cross-Mot."). Plaintiffs are two 

groups of environmental advocates seeking summary judgment on their 

claims that Defendants,1 the National Marine Fisheries Service (the 

"Fisheries Service") and the United States Army Corps of Engineers 

 

1

 The complaint, ECF No. 11 ("Compl.") names several other 

defendants: Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce, William Stelle, 

Regional Administrator of the Fisheries Service, and John McHugh, 

Secretary of the Army. Nevertheless, because this motion solely 

concerns FOIA claims against the Fisheries Service and the Corps, 

these defendants' actions are not directly at issue. Thus, the 

Court will treat this order as though there were only two 

defendants, the Fisheries Service and the Corps. 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 30
2 

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

For the Northern District of California 

(the "Corps"), failed to comply with the FOIA in responding to 

Plaintiffs' requests for documents. Additionally, Plaintiffs 

allege that the Fisheries Service has a pattern and practice of 

such failures. Defendants disagree and have moved for summary 

judgment in their own right, arguing they have complied with the 

law. 

Also pending before the Court and considered herein is a 

motion filed in case No. 14-1130 SC, ECF No. 64 ("Pls.' Mot. to 

Relate") and 66 ("Gov't Response to Mot. to Relate") to relate case 

No. 15-2558 JSC to the case at bar and to case No. 14-1130 SC. 

Case No. 14-1130 SC and this case have already been related. 

 The Court previously granted in part and denied in part crossmotions for summary judgment on similar FOIA issues in a related 

case, Our Children's Earth Foundation v. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, -- F. Supp. 3d --, No. 14-1130 SC, 2015 WL 1458156 (N.D. 

Cal. Mar. 30, 2015), and the underlying facts are more fully 

explained in that opinion. Id. at *1-2. Relevant to this motion, 

in its prior order, the Court declined to address allegations of a 

pattern and practice of FOIA violations by the Fisheries Service, 

noting that those same issues were raised here between the same 

parties with a fuller evidentiary record. Id. at *8. 

The cross-motions for summary judgment in this case are fully 

briefed, ECF Nos. 22 ("Pls.' Opp'n & Reply"), 23 ("Gov't Reply"),2

and appropriate for resolution without oral argument under Civil 

Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons set forth below the motions are 

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

 

2

 Also related but not directly at issue is Case No. 14-1130, ECF 

Nos. 60 ("Gov't Response"), 69 ("Pls.' Response"). 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 2 of 30
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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

II. BACKGROUND

 While this case concerns solely FOIA claims, Plaintiffs' 

underlying concerns are twofold: (1) an endangered fish, the 

Central California Coast Steelhead; and (2) a dam and associated 

water system, the Searsville Dam and "Lake Water System," owned by 

Stanford University. Plaintiffs believe the Searsville Dam and 

Lake Water System have adversely impacted Steelhead population and 

habitat. Through the four FOIA requests at issue in this case, 

FOIA requests addressed in the related case, and others, Plaintiffs 

seek information about the Steelhead, Stanford's activities, and a 

biological opinion issued by the Fisheries Service to the Corps 

supporting the Corps' issuance of a permit to Stanford for upgrades 

to the Lake Water System. 

 Plaintiffs' complaints are four-fold. First, Plaintiffs 

believe that the Fisheries Service's search for records responsive 

to two of its FOIA requests were inadequate. Second, Plaintiffs 

argue the Fisheries Service has improperly withheld or overly 

redacted responsive records under two exemptions in the FOIA. 

Third, Plaintiffs contend that the Fisheries Service is defying 

Department of Commerce (of which the Fisheries Service is a part) 

regulations by cutting off their search for responsive records at 

the date the FOIA request is received rather than the date the 

search begins. Plaintiffs refer to these dates as "search cutoff 

dates" and argue their net effect is to deprive Plaintiffs of 

documents created after the cutoff date but during the pendency of 

a search. Finally, Plaintiffs argue the Court should issue a 

declaratory judgment that the Fisheries Service and the Corps' 

responses to Plaintiffs' requests were untimely, and issue 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 3 of 30
4 

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

For the Northern District of California 

declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy the Fisheries Service's 

alleged pattern and practice of FOIA violations. 

 The Fisheries Service and the Corps have moved for summary 

judgment in their own right arguing that their searches were 

adequate, withholdings were justified, search cutoff dates were 

reasonable and not contrary to Department of Commerce regulations, 

and declaratory and injunctive relief are accordingly unwarranted. 

 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

Entry of summary judgment is proper "if the movant shows that 

there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant 

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(a). Summary judgment should be granted if the evidence would 

require a directed verdict for the moving party. Anderson v. 

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251 (1986). "A moving party 

without the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial—- usually, but 

not always, a defendant —- has both the initial burden of 

production and the ultimate burden of persuasion on a motion for 

summary judgment." Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz 

Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). 

"In order to carry its burden of production, the moving party 

must either produce evidence negating an essential element of the 

nonmoving party's claim or defense or show that the nonmoving party 

does not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its 

ultimate burden of persuasion at trial." Id. "In order to carry 

its ultimate burden of persuasion on the motion, the moving party 

must persuade the court that there is no genuine issue of material 

fact." Id. "The evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 4 of 30
5 

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

For the Northern District of California 

all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Anderson, 

477 U.S. at 255.

 FOIA cases are typically decided on motions for summary 

judgment. Yonemoto v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 686 F.3d 681, 688 

(9th Cir. 2011) as amended (Jan. 18, 2012). "To carry their 

summary judgment burden, agencies are typically required to submit 

an index and 'detailed public affidavits' that, together, 'identify 

the documents withheld, the FOIA exemptions claimed, and a 

particularized explanation of why each document falls within the 

claimed exemption.'" Id. (quoting Lion Raisins v. Dep't of Agric., 

354 F.3d 1072, 1082 (9th Cir. 2004) (alterations in original)). 

These submissions are typically referred to as a Vaughn index, 

after Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 823-25 (D.C. Cir. 1973), and 

they must be "from 'affiants who are knowledgeable about the 

information sought' and 'detailed enough to allow court[s] to make 

an independent assessment of the government's claim of exemption.'" 

Yonemoto, 686 F.3d at 688 (internal alterations omitted) (quoting 

Lion Raisins, 354 F.3d at 1079). 

IV. DISCUSSION 

 The Court will address the adequacy of the search and 

improper withholding arguments first, before turning to Plaintiffs' 

requests for declaratory or injunctive relief. 

 A. Adequacy of the Search 

 First, Plaintiffs challenge the adequacy of the Fisheries 

Service's search for records responsive to their first and second 

FOIA requests. 

/// 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 5 of 30
6 

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

For the Northern District of California 

 To comply with the FOIA, an agency must conduct a "search 

reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents." Zemansky 

v. EPA, 767 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting Weisberg v. U.S. 

Dep't of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). In so 

doing, "the issue to be resolved is not whether there might exist 

any other documents possibly responsive to the request, but rather 

whether the search for those documents was adequate." Id. 

(quotation omitted) (emphasis in original). 

 To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the agency must 

demonstrate "beyond material doubt . . . that it has conducted a 

search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents." 

S. Yuba River Citizens League v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., No. 

CIV. S-06-2845 LKK/JFM, 2008 WL 2523819, at *11 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 

2008) (citing Zemansky, 767 F.2d at 571). In so doing, the agency 

may rely on "reasonably detailed, non-conclusory affidavits and 

declarations submitted in good faith," id., describing "what 

records were searched, by whom, and through what process." 

Lawyers' Comm. for Civil Rights v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury, 534 

F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (quoting Steinberg v. U.S. 

Dep't of Justice, 23 F.3d 548, 552 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). The purpose 

of this requirement is "to afford a FOIA requester an opportunity 

to challenge the adequacy of the search and to allow the district 

court to determine if the search was adequate in order to grant 

summary judgment." Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 

(D.C. Cir. 1990). 

 As in the related case, the Fisheries Service has submitted a 

declaration from Gary Stern, Branch Chief of the Fisheries 

Service's San Francisco Bay Branch, which is itself a branch of the 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 6 of 30
7 

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

For the Northern District of California 

Fisheries Service's North-Central Coast Office located in Santa 

Rosa, California. ECF No. 20 ("Stern Decl."). 

 As to Plaintiffs' first request, the North-Central Coast 

Office was tasked with searching for responsive records because it 

conducted all the Fisheries Service's work involving Stanford, 

Searsville, and San Francisquito Creek and those locations fall 

within the North-Central Coast Office's geographic area of 

responsibilities. Id. at ¶ 5. After reviewing Plaintiffs' first 

request, Stern "tasked all [Fisheries Service] staff within the San 

Francisco Bay Branch and administrative support staff within the 

[North-Central Coast Office] with searching for potentially 

responsive documents." Id. at ¶ 5. The staff searched hard copy 

and electronic files including emails, office files, and "relevant 

project folders" for responsive records. Id. at ¶ 6. The staff 

also conducted "relevant key word searches for 'Searsville,' 

'Stanford,' and 'San Francisquito Creek' as well as for the names 

of the individuals involved in relevant email discussions (e.g., 

'Corinne Gray', 'Roy Torres', 'Holly Costa', and 'Tom Zigterman')." 

Id. (errors in original). The Fisheries Services' Records 

Management System ("RMS") was used to identify the "relevant 

project files," and then staff retrieved the identified folders. 

 The search for records responsive to Plaintiffs' second 

request was similar, and Stern also "instructed all [Fisheries 

Service] staff within the [North-Central Coast Office] to search 

for responsive documents." Id. at ¶ 9. The search included hard 

copy and electronic records including office files, emails, and 

"relevant project folders (e.g., Section 7 consultations with U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers for Stanford's Steelhead Habitat 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 7 of 30
8 

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

For the Northern District of California 

Enhancement Project and California Water Service facilities on Bear 

Creek files)." Id. at ¶ 10. Furthermore, as with the first 

search, "[t]he staff conducted relevant key word searches for 

'Searsville,' 'Stanford,' 'San Francisquito Creek,' 'Bear Creek' as 

well as for the names of individuals involved in relevant email 

discussions (e.g., 'Erin McCauley', 'Serge Glushkoff', 'Michael 

Love' and 'Tom Zigterman')." Id. (errors in original). 

 Stern's declaration is insufficient to establish the adequacy 

of the Fisheries Service's search as to either challenged request. 

First, while Stern provides examples of "relevant project folders," 

"relevant key word searches," and individuals involved in "relevant 

email discussions," he does not "specify who at the [North-Central 

Coast Office] searched the . . . files" aside from referring simply 

to "staff." See Lion Raisins, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 636 F. 

Supp. 2d 1081, 1105 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Second, it is not clear 

whether Stern's parenthetical examples include all the search terms 

utilized or are merely meant to be illustrative. See Hiken v. 

Dep't of Def., 521 F. Supp. 2d 1047, 1054 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("The 

disclosure of search terms . . . may be helpful in evaluating the 

adequacy of the search."). Third, while Stern describes how 

"relevant" project folders were identified, the references to 

searching "relevant" emails and office files and email discussions 

are conclusory, and he does not "explain in reasonable 

detail . . . what process or procedure was utilized that [led] to 

the selection of those particular" folders, files, or email 

discussions aside from project folders identified using the 

Fisheries Service's RMS. See Lion Raisins, 636 F. Supp. 2d at 

1105. Finally, Stern's declaration suggests that "he is simply 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 8 of 30
9 

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

For the Northern District of California 

relaying hearsay" regarding the search because, by his description, 

"the staff at the [North-Central Coast Office]" conducted the 

search. See id. at 1105-06; Stern Decl. at ¶ 6. 

 Because the Court lacks sufficient basis to conclude the 

Fisheries Service conducted an adequate search, the Court ORDERS 

the Fisheries Service to supplement the factual record within 30 

days of the signature date of this Order. Within 14 days of the 

supplementation, Plaintiffs may file a response and the Defendants 

may file a reply. The Court HOLDS IN ABEYANCE the motion to 

summary judgment as to the adequacy of the search and the related 

request for declaratory judgment that the Fisheries Service's 

searches were inadequate. 

B. Withholdings and Redactions 

 The FOIA's goal is to "ensure an informed citizenry, vital to 

the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against 

corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed." 

NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978). While 

this goal reflects a general philosophy of full agency disclosure, 

John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, 152 (1989), FOIA 

incorporates nine exemptions, which reflect the need to balance the 

public's interest in full disclosure against the sometimes 

legitimate need for the Government to maintain secrecy. See 5 

U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)-(9). Because "[t]hese limited exceptions do not 

obscure the basic policy that disclosure, not secrecy, is the 

dominant objective of the Act," Dep't of Interior v. Klamath Water 

Users Protective Ass'n, 532 U.S. 1, 7-8 (2001) (citation omitted), 

exemptions are to be narrowly construed, and "information not 

/// 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 9 of 30
10 

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

For the Northern District of California 

falling within any of the exemptions has to be disclosed . . . ." 

Yonemoto, 686 F.3d at 687. 

 The Fisheries Service withheld a total of 78 documents in 

whole or in part in response to Plaintiffs' first and second FOIA 

requests. Plaintiffs argue that the explanations provided by the 

Fisheries Service are inadequate as to 11 documents withheld under 

Exemption (b)(5), which protects materials produced as part of the 

agency's deliberative process or protected by attorney-client 

privilege, and one document redacted pursuant to Exemption 7(C), 

which provides protection for personal information in law 

enforcement records. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) & (b)(7)(C). The Court 

will address Exemption (b)(5) first before turning to Exemption 

(7)(C). 

 1. Exemption (b)(5) 

 First, Plaintiffs argue that the Fisheries Service has failed 

to adequately justify some of its withholdings under FOIA Exemption 

(b)(5), which protects materials produced as part of the agency's 

deliberative process or covered by attorney-client privilege. Id. 

at (b)(5). The Fisheries Service has invoked this exception in 

withholding 11 documents in their entirety. 

 Exemption (b)(5) applies to "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)(6). As a result, the rule protects from disclosure 

"those documents normally privileged in the civil discovery 

context." NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 149 (1975). 

There are two such privileges at issue here: attorney-client 

privilege and the executive "deliberative process" privilege. The 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 10 of 30
11 

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

For the Northern District of California 

Court finds all the documents potentially covered by the attorneyclient privilege are covered by the deliberative process privilege, 

and therefore only discusses the deliberative process here. 

Deliberative process privilege seeks "'to prevent injury to 

the quality of agency decisions' by ensuring that the 'frank 

discussion of legal or policy matters,' in writing, within the 

agency, is not inhibited by public disclosure." Maricopa Audubon 

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

(quoting Sears, 421 U.S. at 150-51). To fall within the 

deliberative process privilege, the material withheld or redacted 

must be "'predecisional' in nature and must also form part of the 

agency's 'deliberative process.'" Id. at 1093 (quoting Sears, 421 

U.S. at 151-52) (emphasis in original). Predecisional documents 

"may include recommendations, draft documents, proposals, 

suggestions, and other subjective documents which reflect the 

personal opinions of the writer rather than the policy of the 

agency." Assembly of State of Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 968 

F.2d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Formaldehyde Inst. v. Dep't 

of Health & Human Servs., 889 F.2d 1118, 1122 (D.C. Cir. 1989)) 

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Documents 

falling within that definition are part of the agency's 

"deliberative process" if disclosing those documents "would expose 

an agency's decisionmaking process in such a way as to discourage 

candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the 

agency's ability to perform its functions." Id. (quoting 

Formaldehyde, 889 F.2d at 1122). 

All but one of the challenged (b)(5) withholdings are drafts 

of a biological opinion eventually issued by the Fisheries Service 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 11 of 30
12 

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

For the Northern District of California 

to the Corps related to the Corps' issuance of Clean Water Act 

permits for Stanford's "Steelhead Habitat Enhancement Project." 

See ECF No. 19 ("Malabanan Decl.") Ex. 1 ("Vaughn Index") at FOIA 1 

Record Nos. 45-51, 58-59; FOIA 2 Record Nos. 6, 22. As the 

Fisheries Service's Vaughn Index shows, the withheld records are 

"working drafts subject to revision" for a biological opinion that 

was being prepared for release (and eventually were), and reflect, 

among other things, deliberations between National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration staff and scientists about how to 

proceed with the biological opinion. Id. The Court agrees with 

Plaintiffs that the Fisheries Service was required to base its 

biological opinion on the best scientific information available. 

See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). However, the drafts sought reflect the 

interpretations of that scientific information by staff and 

scientists, thus reflecting their personal opinions on the science. 

Cf. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 861 F.2d 1114, 1118 

(9th Cir. 1988) (rejecting the argument that "opinions or 

recommendations regarding facts or consequences of facts are not 

automatically ineligible for exemption from disclosure" under the 

deliberative process privilege). Thus, the Court finds the 

Fisheries Service has adequately justified its withholdings of all 

but one of the draft biological opinions. 

Conversely, the Court finds Fisheries Service did not 

adequately justify its withholding for Record Number 1 to 

Plaintiffs' first FOIA request. The Fisheries Service's Vaughn 

Index states that this record "consists of an email from a NOAA 

employee to her supervisor with a summary and her review on a SHEP 

monitoring report (pages 1-2) as well as an attachment organizing 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 12 of 30
13 

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

For the Northern District of California 

that summary/review on a chart (page 3)." Vaughn Index at FOIA 1 

Record 1. The Fisheries Service states that this document was 

prepared at a time when the Fisheries Service was "considering 

whether to issue a revised [Steelhead Habitat Enhancement Project] 

biological opinion." Id. The fact that an agency was 

contemporaneously considering whether to issue a revised opinion 

does not equate to a showing that the document itself was "prepared 

in order to assist an agency decisionmaker in arriving at his 

decision." See Assembly of State of Cal., 968 F.2d at 920. Nor is 

the Fisheries Service's mere consideration of whether to issue a 

revised biological opinion sufficient to show the deliberative 

nature of the document, because the Vaughn Index says nothing of 

how this document could "reveal the mental processes of 

decisionmakers" or be "tantamount to the 'publication of the 

evaluation and analysis of the multitudinous facts' conducted by 

the agency . . . ." Nat'l Wildlife, 861 F.2d at 1119. 

The Fisheries Service has also fallen short of its burden as 

to the segregability. Although the Fisheries Service properly 

withheld some of these documents as discussed, it did so in full 

while providing a declaration that merely gave a blanket statement 

that "[t]o the best of [FOIA Coordinator Ana Liza Malabanan's] 

knowledge, to the extent . . . there is factual material . . . in 

the withheld portions of the . . . documents listed in the Vaughn 

Index, that information is not segregable from the withheld 

portions." Malabanan Decl. ¶ 126. This is clearly insufficient. 

See ACLU of N. Cal. v. FBI, No. 12-cv-03728-SI, 2014 WL 4629110, at 

*9 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2014) (concluding a similarly conclusory 

/// 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 13 of 30
14 

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

For the Northern District of California 

declaration was insufficient to carry the agency's burden on 

segregability). 

In light of these issues with the Fisheries Service's 

submissions, the Court ORDERS the Fisheries Service to supplement 

the record within 30 days of the signature date of this Order to 

provide sufficient explanation for the non-segregability of the 

records withheld in full under Exemption (b)(5) and a more detailed 

explanation of why Record Number 1 to Plaintiffs' first FOIA 

request is covered by the deliberative process privilege. Within 

14 days of the supplementation, Plaintiffs may file a response and 

the Defendants may file a reply. The Court HOLDS IN ABEYANCE the 

motions for summary judgment as to these documents until the record 

is supplemented. 

2. Exemption 7(C) 

Next, Plaintiffs challenge the redaction of the "names of an 

[Office of Law Enforcement] agent, informants, witnesses, 

government personnel, or other third parties" from an investigative 

report created by an Office of Law Enforcement special agent. 

Vaughn Index at FOIA 1 Record 75. 

Exemption 7(C) authorizes the withholding of "records or 

information compiled for law enforcement purposes" only to the 

extent they "could reasonably be expected to constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy . . . ." 5 U.S.C. § 

552(b)(7)(C). The document containing the redacted names is an 

investigative report created by a law enforcement agent, thus the 

Court finds it was "compiled for law enforcement purposes . . . ." 

Id. Thus, the only remaining step is "balanc[ing] the privacy 

interest protected by the exemption[] against the public interest 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 14 of 30
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

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

in government openness that would be served by disclosure." See 

Lahr v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964, 973 (9th Cir. 

2009). 

The privacy interests protected by Exemption 7(C) are "a broad 

range of concerns relating to an 'individual's control of 

information concerning his or her person,' and an 'interest in 

keeping personal facts away from the public eye.'" Id. at 974 

(quoting U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of 

Press, 489 U.S. 749, 763, 769 (1989)) (internal citations omitted). 

Certainly, "identifying information such as names, addresses, and 

other personal information falls within the ambit of privacy 

concerns under FOIA." Assoc. Press v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 554 F.3d 

274, 285 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Moreover: 

One who serves his state or nation as a career public 

servant is not thereby stripped of every vestige of 

personal privacy, even with respect to the discharge 

of his official duties. Public identification of any 

of these individuals could conceivably subject them to 

harassment and annoyance in the conduct of their 

official duties and in their private lives. 

Keys v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 570 F. Supp. 2d 59, 68 (D.D.C. 

2008), (quoting Nix v. United States, 572 F.2d 998, 1006 (4th Cir. 

1978). 

Because the Government has identified a cognizable privacy 

interest, "the only relevant public interest in the FOIA balancing 

analysis is the extent to which disclosure of the information 

sought would shed light on an agency's performance of its statutory 

duties or otherwise let citizens know what their government is up 

to." Lahr, 569 F.3d at 974 (quoting Bibles v. Or. Natural Desert 

Ass'n, 519 U.S. 355, 355-56 (1997)). Here, Plaintiffs' assert a 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 15 of 30
16 

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

For the Northern District of California 

public interest exists in releasing the redacted names because 

doing so will aid Plaintiffs in investigating whether Fisheries 

Service law enforcement officer Ray Torres "was conducting an 

investigation of Stanford's [Endangered Species Act] violations 

without being informed of highly pertinent information" other 

Fisheries Service personnel already possessed, where said personnel 

"were oddly being directed not to assist with Mr. Torres' 

investigation." Pls.' Opp'n & Reply at 19. However, 

[w]here the public interest advanced is that officials 

were negligent or that they otherwise improperly 

performed their duties, the requester must establish 

'more than a bare suspicion' of wrongdoing by 

'produc[ing] evidence that would warrant a belief by a 

reasonable person that the alleged Government 

impropriety might have occurred.' 

Lahr, 569 F.3d at 974 (quoting Nat'l Archives & Records Admin. v. 

Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 174 (2004)). 

Here, the only evidence of any alleged improprieties is the 

unredacted portions of the report itself. The Court finds this to 

be an insufficient basis for a reasonable person to conclude that 

the alleged improprieties occurred. Plaintiffs try to offer 

additional evidence, namely the statement of an individual in the 

Fisheries Service's Protected Resource Division that "he and his 

staff had other priorities and he had no staff available to assist 

[Torres] with [his] investigation." See ECF No. 22 ("Costa Reply 

Decl.") Ex. 1 at 8. Plaintiffs assert this supports that employees 

were being directed not to assist with the investigation. The 

Court disagrees. This does not "warrant a belief by a reasonable 

person that the alleged Government impropriety might have 

occurred." Lahr, 569 F.3d at 974. Moreover, even if Plaintiffs' 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 16 of 30
17 

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

For the Northern District of California 

concern were warranted, that would provide a justification for 

releasing the name of the individual who refused to speak to 

Torres, not the names of everyone in the report.3

 

The Court therefore finds that the Fisheries Service's 

redaction of the names in this report was justified. Accordingly, 

summary judgment is GRANTED in the Fisheries Service's favor as to 

this document. 

C. Declaratory and Injunctive Claims 

 The balance of the parties' submissions focuses on Plaintiffs' 

claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs allege 

that the Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Service were tardy 

in responding to Plaintiffs' FOIA requests and referring documents 

for review by the Corps, used unreasonable cutoff dates for its 

searches, and has a pattern and practice of such delays and 

unreasonable cutoff dates for its searches.4 

 Now Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgments that: (1) the 

Fisheries Service was untimely in responding to the FOIA requests 

at issue here; (2) that the Corps likewise was untimely in 

responding to referrals from the Fisheries Service; (3) the 

Fisheries Service's cutoff dates violate the FOIA; (4) that the 

Fisheries Service has a pattern and practice of unreasonable delays 

 

3

 Plaintiff's elsewhere suggest that Defendants have released these 

types of names in the past and that reasons provided are not 

sufficiently specific. Pls.' Response at 2. Even if the Court 

were to find the Fisheries had previously disclosed certain names 

-- a finding the Court does not make -- that would not defeat the 

privacy interest all future agents may have or forevermore strip 

the agency of raising a legal protection provided by statute. 

4

 The pattern and practice and cutoff date allegations were also 

asserted in cross-motions for summary judgment in the related case, 

Our Children's Earth Foundation v. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, No. 14-1130 (N.D. Cal.), however the Court declined to 

address them there, noting that they were repeated in this case 

with a fuller evidentiary record. 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 17 of 30
18 

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

For the Northern District of California 

in (a) responding to FOIA requests, (b) referring documents to 

other agencies, and (c) withholding documents without adequate 

exemption showings. Furthermore, Plaintiffs believe the Fisheries 

Service's delays, cutoff date policies, and the alleged patterns 

and practices all violate the FOIA and argue the Court should 

enjoin the Service to comply with the FOIA. 

 The Court addresses the delay allegations first, before 

turning to the Fisheries Service's cutoff date policies, 

Plaintiffs' pattern and practice claims, and finally, injunctive 

relief. 

 1. Delays 

 Unless exceptional circumstances exist (in which case the 

deadline is thirty working days), an agency must provide a 

"determination" with respect to a FOIA request or internal appeal 

within twenty working days of receipt. See 5 U.S.C. § 

552(a)(6)(A)(i)-(ii). A "determination" need not be the full 

production of documents, but at a minimum the agency must inform 

the requester what documents it will produce and the exceptions it 

will claim in withholding documents. See Citizens for 

Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. Fed. Election Comm'n ("CREW"), 

711 F.3d 180, 184 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

 In adopting the FOIA, Congress was specifically concerned that 

agencies would delay in responding to requests, and as a result "an 

agency's failure to comply with the FOIA's time limits is, by 

itself, a violation of the FOIA." Gilmore v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 

33 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 1187 (N.D. Cal. 1998); see also Long v. IRS, 

693 F.2d 907, 910 (9th Cir. 1982) (concluding that an agency's 

unreasonable delay in disclosing non-exempt documents violated the 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 18 of 30
19 

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

For the Northern District of California 

FOIA and "courts have a duty to prevent these abuses"). As a 

result, courts have found that entering declaratory judgment that 

the agency violated the FOIA is appropriate when the agency has a 

pattern and practice of violating these time limits. See Payne 

Entertainment v. United States, 837 F.2d 486, 494-95 (D.C. Cir. 

1988). Courts have also found declaratory judgment appropriate 

when the agency has violated the time limits in responding to a 

particular set of requests, the agency's violations are consistent, 

and they may recur. See S. Yuba River, 2008 WL 2523819, at *6. 

 The Fisheries Service does not dispute -- and cannot dispute 

-- that it did fail to provide a "determination" for Plaintiffs' 

FOIA requests within either the twenty or thirty working day 

timeline provided in the statute. The records in both this and the 

related case show a clear and undisputed breach of this 

requirement. The Fisheries Service's determination on Plaintiffs' 

first and second FOIA requests were 76 and 27 days overdue 

respectively. Malabanan Decl. ¶¶ 27-28, 35. 

 As Congress recognized in enacting the FOIA: 

[i]nformation is often useful only if it is timely. 

Thus, excessive delay by the agency in its response is 

often tantamount to denial. It is the intent of this 

bill that the affected agencies be required to respond to 

inquiries and administrative appeals within specific time 

limits. 

 

Gilmore, 33 F. Supp. 2d at 1187 (quoting H. Rep. No. 876, 93d 

Cong., 2d Sess. (1974)). In short, even though the Fisheries 

Service does not take the FOIA's deadlines seriously, "[t]here can 

be no doubt that Congress [did]." See id. 

 Defendant Fisheries Service cites to CREW for support that 

deadlines are not absolute and declarative and injunctive relief 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 19 of 30
20 

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

For the Northern District of California 

are not appropriate. Opp'n & Cross-Mot. at 13-14, 22-25. The 

Court agrees that CREW does clarify that "if the agency does not 

adhere to FOIA's explicit timelines, the 'penalty' is that the 

agency cannot rely on the administrative exhaustion requirement to 

keep cases from getting into court." CREW, 711 F.3d at 189. 

However, CREW was considering whether administrative remedies had 

been exhausted and thus the case could continue, rather than 

whether declaratory or injunctive relief should issue. Id. at 190. 

Therefore, Defendant's citation to CREW is insufficient to support 

a conclusion that a prayer for relief should go unanswered. 

 On these facts, as in the related case, the Court finds that 

declaratory judgment should issue that the Fisheries Service 

violated the FOIA's statutory timelines. "A court declaration 

delineates important rights and responsibilities and can be 'a 

message not only to the parties but also to the public and has 

significant educational and lasting importance.'" Natural Res. 

Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 966 F.2d 1292, 1299 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(quoting Bilbrey ex rel. Bilbrey v. Brown, 738 F.2d 1462, 1471 (9th 

Cir. 1984)). Here, both the statutory deadlines and their 

violation are clear, and the repeated, routine violation of these 

deadlines by agencies has been a continual source of concern for 

Congress. As one report put it, "many agencies have failed [to] 

process FOIA requests within the deadlines required by law. These 

delays in responding to FOIA requests continue as one of the most 

significant FOIA problems." Gilmore, 33 F. Supp. 2d at 1187 

(quoting H. Rep. No. 794, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. (1996)). Although 

the Court and many others have recognized that agencies' resources 

are heavily taxed by the quantity and depth of FOIA requests 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 20 of 30
21 

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

For the Northern District of California 

(especially in light of budget constraints that limit the personnel 

and resources assigned to an agency), that does not grant the 

agency carte blanche to repeatedly violate congressionally mandated 

deadlines. On the contrary, "[the Fisheries Service and Fish and 

Wildlife Service's] failure to comply with the FOIA's time limits 

is, by itself, a violation of the FOIA . . . ." Id.; see also 

CREW, 711 F.3d at 189 ("We are intimately familiar with the 

difficulty that FOIA requests pose for executive and independent 

agencies.").5 

 As a result, Plaintiffs' request for declaratory judgment 

that the Fisheries Service violated the FOIA's statutory timelines 

in responding to its requests is GRANTED. 

 This is not to say that a declaratory judgment should always 

issue when the agency violates these time limits. On the contrary, 

the issuance of declaratory judgments must always be guided by 

"whether a judgment will clarify and settle the legal relations at 

issue and whether it will afford relief from the uncertainty and 

controversy giving rise to the proceedings." Nat'l Resources Def. 

Council, 966 F.2d at 1299. However under these and similar 

circumstances, where the Fisheries Service has repeatedly and 

substantially violated the time limits, and it is possible the 

violations will recur with respect to the same requesters, 

declaratory judgment is appropriate. See S. Yuba River, 2008 WL 

2523819, at *6. 

/// 

 

5

 The Court is further concerned about the ongoing nature of these 

violations and the need for declaratory relief upon review of 

motion to relate, addressed herein, where it appears the Fisheries 

Services may have (yet again) failed to observe FOIA deadlines. 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 21 of 30
22 

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

For the Northern District of California 

 By the same token, however, the Court declines to enter 

declaratory judgment against the Corps. As with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service in the related case, there is no allegation that 

the Corps repeatedly violated the FOIA's time limits with respect 

to Plaintiffs' requests. Furthermore, the Corps is not named as a 

defendant in the related case, and there is no indication that 

Plaintiffs have made repeated FOIA requests to the Corps (or that 

Plaintiffs' requests have been repeatedly referred to the Corps) or 

that any violations of the FOIA's time limits are likely to recur 

with respect to Plaintiffs. Allegations suggest that delay may 

have existed from the Fisheries Service in making the referral, but 

that is not the fault of the Corps.6 As a result, the Court finds 

that issuing a declaratory judgment against the Corps would neither 

"clarify and settle the legal relations at issue [nor] . . . afford 

relief from the uncertainty and controversy giving rise to the 

proceedings." See Nat'l Resources Def. Council, 966 F.2d at 1299. 

 As a result, Plaintiffs' request for declaratory judgment 

against the Corps is DENIED. 

 2. Cutoff Dates 

 "Records responsive to a request shall include those records 

within the Department's possession and control as of the date the 

Department begins its search for them." 15 C.F.R. § 4.5(a). Here, 

the point of contention is not centered around when the requests 

 

6

 In granting declaratory judgment against the Fisheries Service, 

the Court does not opine on whether the referral to the Corps was 

untimely due to violation of any particular legal standard cited by 

parties because by any standard offered the time taken to make the 

determination as to the need for a referral was too long. This 

contributed to the Court's decision to issue declaratory judgment 

against the Fisheries Service. That said, because the Court agrees 

referral was appropriate (albeit late), the Court evaluates the 

timeliness of the receiving agency (here, the Corps) separately. 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 22 of 30
23 

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

For the Northern District of California 

were received but when the search actually began. Defendants claim 

the search actually began the day the task was assigned to relevant 

personnel. See Stern Decl., ¶¶ 7-11. Plaintiffs argue that 

evidence suggests that while the assignments were made on the 

aforementioned date, nobody began to actually search until later, 

thus mandating a later cut-off date. See Malabanan Decl. ¶¶ 19-22. 

It seems that this is not actually a legal dispute, as both 

sides seem to want to apply the same legal standard claiming that 

the appropriate cut-off date is the day searching began. Insofar 

as either side argues for the application of any other legal 

conclusion, the Court rejects the argument. See South Yuba River 

Citizens League v. NMFS, 2008 WL 2523819, *14-15 (E.D. Cal. June 

20, 2008) (holding date-of-search cutoff proper); see also Edmonds 

Inst. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 383 F. Supp. 2d 105, 111 (D.D.C. 

2005) (“The D.C. Circuit has all but endorsed the use of date-ofsearch as the cut-off date for FOIA requests”) (citing Pub. Citizen 

v. Dept. of State, 276 F.3d 634, 642 (D.C. Cir. 2002)); Edmonds 

Inst. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 383 F. Supp. 2d 105, 111 (D.D.C. 

2005) ("Under the date-of-search approach, [a plaintiff] can, with 

relative ease, file a second FOIA request for documents created 

since [the cutoff date]"). 

 If this is not a legal dispute, it must be a factual one. 

Here, from the evidence presented, the Court can see a reasonable 

finder of fact being able to conclude that it is more likely than 

not that the search started the day the task was assigned to staff 

or -- in light of the timeline, other substantive responsibilities, 

and limited staff available -- that it is more likely than not that 

the date of tasking was some unspecified number of days prior to 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 23 of 30
24 

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

For the Northern District of California 

the date the agency actually began its search. Factual disputes of 

this nature are not appropriate for summary judgment. As FOIA 

cases are routinely resolved on summary judgment, it is likely that 

a more detailed account by the agency of exactly when it began its 

actual search would clarify the proper search cutoff dates and 

allow the Court to resolve this issue on summary judgment.7 

In light of this concern, the Court ORDERS the Fisheries 

Service to supplement the record within 30 days of the signature 

date of this Order to provide additional evidence regarding the 

date(s) that searches actually began vice the date that searches 

were merely tasked. Within 14 days of the supplementation, 

Plaintiffs may file a response and the Defendants may file a reply. 

The Court HOLDS IN ABEYANCE the motions for summary judgment as to 

cutoff dates until the record is supplemented. 

 3. Plaintiffs' pattern and practice claims 

Plaintiffs allege a pattern and practice claim, suggesting 

that the responses to all FOIA matters have been consistently and 

impermissibly slow. Yet the Court is cognizant of a motion 

(addressed later herein) to relate yet a third case involving a 

FOIA violation by the Fisheries Service that may (or may not) have 

bearing on whether such a pattern and practice still exists. To 

assist the Court in evaluating whether declaratory or injunctive 

relief is still appropriate, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to provide 

supplemental briefing as to: 

 

7

 A conclusory statement such as the one provided in the Stern 

Declaration may often be sufficient to establish this date. Here, 

however, where the dispute centers on said date and Plaintiff notes 

evidence in the record that suggests a contrary conclusion, the 

Court is loath to accept a conclusory remark with no further proof 

in the form of (for example) documentary evidence or testimony by a 

staff member who actually began a search on the relevant day. 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 24 of 30
25 

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

For the Northern District of California 

(1) whether Case No. 15-2558 SC is now moot due to 

satisfaction of the July 9, 2015 deadline referenced 

in its brief (ECF No. 66 at 3); and 

(2) whether Case No. 15-2558 SC provides sufficient new 

evidence of compliance by Defendant National Marine 

Fisheries Service to impact Plaintiffs' pattern-andpractice claims. 

The Court ORDERS the Fisheries Service to supplement the factual 

record and address the two listed concerns within 30 days of the 

signature date of this Order. Within 14 days of the 

supplementation, Plaintiffs may file a response and Defendants may 

file a reply. The Court HOLDS IN ABEYANCE the motion to summary 

judgment as to the request for declaratory judgment that the 

Fisheries Service has a pattern and practice of failing to observe 

FOIA deadlines. 

 4. Injunctive Relief 

 The Fisheries Service is ORDERED to comply with FOIA and its 

deadlines, due to the Court's finding that the Fisheries Service 

has failed to do so previously and the potential that these 

offenses might continue. Yet the Court, having so ordered and 

having GRANTED declaratory relief, DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE further 

injunctive relief at this time. The Court cannot accept good faith 

as a shield which fully protects Defendants from rebuke. See, 

e.g., Mayock v. I.N.S., 714 F. Supp. 1558, 1561 (N.D. Cal. 1989), 

rev'd on other grounds by Mayock v. Nelson, 938 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 

1991) (finding that FOIA may be violated even absent bad faith). 

However, the Court is also sympathetic to the fact that Plaintiffs 

appear to be repeatedly making large requests in sufficiently rapid 

succession that the Fisheries Service is unable to complete its 

/// 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 25 of 30
26 

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

For the Northern District of California 

response to one request before receiving a second.8 Evidence of 

good faith and the case involved in the motion to relate suggests 

efforts may have been made to comply with the deadlines, and 

implies that upon receipt of this order the Fisheries Service will 

significantly improve its future performance in continuation of its 

good faith without an injunction by the Court. Therefore, further 

injunctive relief is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will 

entertain a new petition for injunctive relief at such time as 

declaratory relief alone fails. 

D. Claims Against FWS 

 The only claim Plaintiffs appear to press against FWS is that, 

after receiving a referral of potentially relevant documents from 

the Fisheries Service, FWS failed to process the referred documents 

within the statutory time limits. 

 The Fisheries Service's referral of documents to FWS is 

governed by the Department of Commerce's regulations for FOIA 

referrals. In the relevant part, the regulations state that "[i]f 

a component receives a request for a record in its possession in 

which another Federal agency subject to the FOIA has the primary 

interest, the component shall refer the record to that agency for 

direct response to the requester." 15 C.F.R. § 4.5(b). The FOIA 

provides that the need for consultation is an "unusual 

circumstance," and states that "consultation . . . shall be 

/// 

 

8

 While this is in part the fault of Defendants' failure to comply 

with deadlines, the Court exercises its discretion to deny further 

relief where it seems Plaintiffs have flooded Defendants with 

complex FOIA requests each requiring thousands of pages of document 

review and now complain about untimeliness because the agency is 

too busy to provide a complete, timely response. 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 26 of 30
27 

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

For the Northern District of California 

conducted with all practicable speed . . . ." 5 U.S.C. 

552(a)(6)(B)(iii). 

 Based on the reference to "all practicable speed," FWS argues 

that the FOIA's statutory timelines do not apply to referrals for 

consultation. The general provision is that no notice citing 

unusual circumstances "shall specify a date that would result in an 

extension for more than ten working days." 5 U.S.C. § 

552(a)(6)(B)(i). Irrespective of whether the referral here is 

bound by this general provision or the specific term that agency 

consultations shall be conducted with "all practicable speed," the 

Court nonetheless finds declaratory judgment against FWS would be 

inappropriate under the circumstances in this case.9

 Unlike the Fisheries Service, there is no allegation that FWS 

repeatedly violated the FOIA's time limits with respect to 

Plaintiffs' requests. Furthermore, FWS is not named as a defendant 

in the related case, and there is no indication that Plaintiffs 

have made repeated FOIA requests to FWS (or that Plaintiffs' 

requests have been repeatedly referred to FWS) or that any 

violations of the FOIA's time limits are likely to recur with 

respect to Plaintiffs. As a result, the Court finds that issuing a 

declaratory judgment against FWS would neither "clarify and settle 

the legal relations at issue [nor] . . . afford relief from the 

uncertainty and controversy giving rise to the proceedings." See 

Nat'l Resources Def. Council, 966 F.2d at 1299. 

 As a result, Plaintiffs' request for declaratory judgment 

against the Fish and Wildlife Service is DENIED. Furthermore, 

because Plaintiffs do not appear to challenge any of the Fish and 

 

9

 Accordingly, the Court does not opine on this legal argument. 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 27 of 30
28 

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

For the Northern District of California 

Wildlife Service's withholdings or redactions under the FOIA, 

summary judgment is GRANTED in the Defendant's favor on those 

issues. 

V. MOTION TO RELATE 

 The Court now turns to a motion to relate case No. 15-2558 JSC 

to the case at bar and to the already related case, No. 14-1130 SC. 

Civil Local Rule 3-12 states that an action is related to another 

when: 

(1) The actions concern substantially the same parties, 

property, transaction or event; and 

(2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome 

duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if 

the cases are conducted before different Judges. 

 Review of the motion to relate by Plaintiffs suggest that 

there are reasons both to grant and deny this request. Case No. 

14-1130 SC, ECF No. 64. The response by Defendants request that 

cases not be related. ECF No. 66. However, in making that 

request, Defendants note that the facts in Case No. 15-2558 JSC may 

undermine the pattern-and-practice claim made by Plaintiffs in the 

cases pending before the Court. ECF No. 66 at 2. 

 The Court agrees that Case No. 15-2558 JSC involves slightly 

differing parties, a differing underlying FOIA request, and that 

the limited issue raised is unrelated to the issues raised in the 

other cases already before the Court. However, Plaintiffs seek 

declaratory relief and injunctive relief alleging an ongoing 

pattern and practice for failure of the Fisheries Services to abide 

by the terms of FOIA. A case that presents another potential 

violation or -- as the Federal Defendant suggests, proof of 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 28 of 30
29 

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

For the Northern District of California 

compliance undermining the pattern and practice alleged by 

Plaintiffs -- should be evaluated in the same light as the other 

cases involving substantially the same agency responding to the 

same FOIA requestors seeking information about substantially the 

same matter. Therefore, there may be an unduly burdensome 

duplication of labor or conflicting result if Case No. 15-2558 JSC 

is heard by another Judge. 

 Accordingly, the Court finds that Case No. 15-2558 JSC is 

related to a case assigned to the Court per Civil Local Rule 3-12. 

The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to reassign the case, re-numbered as 

No. 15-2558 SC. Case management conferences will be rescheduled, 

and parties shall adjust the dates for the conference, disclosures, 

and reports required by Fed R. Civ P. 16 and 26 to match. Any 

dates for hearings-noticed motions exclusively filed under former 

Case No. 15-2558 JSC are VACATED and must be re-noticed by the 

moving party. ADR deadlines and case management order deadlines 

(except for those related to court appearances) remain in effect. 

However, upon review of the complaint underlying Case No. 15-2558 

JSC, the purpose of the FOIA requests by Plaintiffs is aimed at the 

same ends and the Court is justifiably concerned as to whether the 

overall compliance or lack thereof in this third case impacts the 

need for the declaratory judgment sought in Case Nos. 14-1130 SC 

and 14-4365 SC. 

VI. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons set forth above, the cross-motions for summary 

judgment are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court will 

HOLD IN ABEYANCE the motions regarding the Fisheries Service's 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 29 of 30
30 

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

For the Northern District of California 

exemption claims, adequacy challenge, cutoff dates, and pattern and 

practice allegations pending the supplementation of the record 

ordered to begin within thirty (30) days of the signature date of 

this order. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED 

 Dated: July 20, 2015 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:14-cv-04365-WHO Document 25 Filed 07/20/15 Page 30 of 30