Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01130/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01130-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OUR CHILDREN'S EARTH 

FOUNDATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES 

SERVICE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01130-WHO 

Case No. 14-cv-04365 WHO

ORDER RESOLVING REMAINING 

ISSUES

These related FOIA cases have been litigated almost to conclusion before the Hon. Samuel 

Conti, who has now retired. Three issues remain, each of which I decide with reference to Judge 

Conti’s prior Orders. For the reasons described below, I agree with the arguments of defendant 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that bring these cases to an end and ask that the parties 

submit a stipulated form of judgment within ten days.

BACKGROUND

The parties are intimately familiar with the facts and procedural history of these related 

cases. For present purposes, it suffices to explain that plaintiffs are environmental organizations 

who submitted FOIA requests to NMFS regarding agency actions regarding a plan by Stanford 

University to upgrade water diversion facilities and the impacts those upgrades may have on 

steelhead trout and other endangered species. Plaintiffs’ first lawsuit – OCE I, Case No. 14-1130 

– generally involves whether NMFS’s responses to plaintiffs’ FOIA requests were adequate and 

plaintiffs’ second related lawsuit – OCE II, Case No. 14-4365 – involves allegations that NMFS 

has a pattern and practice of tardy and incomplete responses to FOIA requests. OCE III, Case No. 

15-2558, was dismissed as moot and is no longer at issue. October 21, 2015 Order (Dkt. No. 31) 

at 22.

Case 3:14-cv-01130-WHO Document 75 Filed 01/20/16 Page 1 of 9
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

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

I. WITHHOLDING OF INFORMATION FROM EXHIBIT 3 TO COSTA REPLY

Plaintiffs argue that Judge Conti did not rule on whether NMFS appropriately redacted 

names and contact information from an email chain that was attached as Exhibit 3 to the Costa 

Declaration (14-1130, Dkt. No. 46-3, “Exhibit 3”). The issue first arose in Judge Conti’s March 

30, 2015 Order concerning OCE I. Dkt. No. 59. Judge Conti explained that NMFS “redacted the 

names and contact information for two individuals in its Office of Law Enforcement, stating in its 

Vaughn Index that the ‘withheld information consists of the names and contact information of 

NOAA law enforcement officers. The withheld information constitutes personal information that 

would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy in which no public interest has been 

identified.’” Id. at 13. Judge Conti concluded that under FOIA Exemption 6 (5 U.S.C. § 

552(b)(6)) NMFS “has failed to provide a particularized explanation of what non-trivial privacy 

interest would be implicated if these individuals’ names and contact information are disclosed.” 

Id. at 14-15. While NMFS argued in its briefs (but not in its declarations or Vaughn index) that 

disclosure of this information could subject the individuals to harm because plaintiffs’ intended to 

publicize those individuals’ role in the underlying dispute over the water system upgrade, the 

Court concluded on the record at that juncture “there is no reason aside from speculation for 

concluding these individuals will be subjected to ‘harassment,’ ‘embarrassment,’ ‘stigma,’ or 

other negative consequences if their associations with this email are publicly revealed.” Id. at 15. 

As a result the Court ordered NMFS to supplement the factual record “to enable the Court to more 

fully assess what, if any, privacy interests are at stake,” and held the summary judgment motion as 

to Exhibit 3 “in abeyance, until the record is supplemented and the Court determines if additional 

filings or in camera review is necessary.” Id. at 16.

In the briefing following that Order, NMFS asserted that the names and contact 

information were protected by Exemptions 6 and 7(C), as explained in the declaration of Logan 

Gregory (Dkt. No. 60-2). Gregory stated that the agency redacts that type of information in order 

to protect its law enforcement officers from being targeted, possibly retaliated against, or harassed 

as a result of the officers’ civil and criminal investigations. Dkt. No. 60-2 ¶¶ 4-5. In response, 

Case 3:14-cv-01130-WHO Document 75 Filed 01/20/16 Page 2 of 9
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

Northern District of California

plaintiffs argued NMFS had waived any reliance on 7(C) and failed to comply with Judge Conti’s 

order to provide a particularlized explanation showing that a non-trivial privacy interest existed to

support the redactions. Dkt. No. 69.

On July 20, 2015, Judge Conti issued an order addressing issues in both OCE I and OCE 

II. He did not address withholding under Exemption 6, but did engage in a lengthy discussion of 

Exemption 7(C) with particular respect to the withholding of law enforcement officer names from 

an investigator’s memo (“Investigator’s Memo”). Dkt. No 25 at 14-17. He held that redaction of 

law enforcement officer names was justified under 7(C) in that NMFS had shown a cognizable 

privacy interest that was not outweighed by the public interest in determining whether the 

investigator had access to specific information. Id. at 15-16.

Plaintiffs argue that Judge Conti could not have resolved the Exhibit 3 issue in the July 20, 

2015 Order because he did not address Exemption 6, did not address plaintiffs’ waiver argument 

as to 7(C), and only expressly addressed the withholding of law enforcement names from the 

Investigator’s Memo under Exemption 7(C). 14-4365, Dkt. No. 32. While that is correct, NMFS 

contends that Judge Conti necessarily decided the issue because under either Exemption 6 or 7(C), 

plaintiffs failed to identify any public interest in the production of the names and contact 

information that would outweigh NMFS assertions of privacy. NMFS argues that the privacy 

interest in the names and contact information redacted from Exhibit 3 are materially 

indistinguishable from the privacy interest in the names redacted from the Investigator’s Memo. 

Id.

Judge Conti’s July 20, 2015 Order did not resolve whether NMFS appropriately redacted 

the names and contact information from Exhibit 3. However, NMFS did not waive the ability to 

assert Exemption 7(C); Judge Conti invited NMFS to supplement the record on this issue and gave 

plaintiffs the opportunity to respond. See Dkt. Nos. 59, 62, 69. Under Judge Conti’s 7(C) 

analysis – as explained at pages 14-16 of his July 20, 2015 Order – I conclude that NMFS has 

identified a cognizable privacy interest supporting redaction of the names and contact information 

from Exhibit 3 similar to the interest asserted by NMFS with respect to the Investigator’s Memo. 

On the other side of the balance, I do not see any public interest in disclosing the names and 

Case 3:14-cv-01130-WHO Document 75 Filed 01/20/16 Page 3 of 9
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

Northern District of California

contact information. The only public interest argument put forth by plaintiffs is their ability “to be 

able to evaluate whether NMFS is adequately searching its files by tasking these personnel with 

reviewing their files.” Dkt. No. 47 at 19. The adequacy of NMFS’s search is no longer at issue, 

following Judge Conti’s orders. Consistent with Judge Conti’s determination as to the 

Investigator’s Memo, I conclude that NMFS was justified in redacting the law enforcement officer 

information from Exhibit 3. 

II. PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF SETTING IMPROPER CUTOFF DATES 

Plaintiffs alleged in OCE I and OCE II that NMFS has a pattern and practice of improperly 

setting the cut-off date for FOIA searches at the date NMFS receives FOIA requests or the date the 

agency issues a Tasker memo1, and not the date when searches actually begin which plaintiffs

contend is required under FOIA. See 15 C.F.R. § 4.5(a) (“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.”).

In his July 20, 2015 Order, Judge Conti discussed this claim and concluded that it was at 

most a factual dispute – because under FOIA responsive records must be produced up to the date 

the search was started – and ordered NMFS to provide a more detailed account of “exactly when it 

began its actual search [to] clarify the proper search cutoff dates and allow the Court to resolve 

this issue on summary judgment.” Dkt. No. 25 at 24. NMFS was directed to provide “additional 

evidence regarding the date(s) that searches actually began vice the date that searches were merely 

tasked.” Id. In response, NMFS submitted additional argument and evidence regarding the date it 

began its search for responsive documents on two of plaintiffs’ FOIA requests, as the “the date the 

subject-matter expert involved begins the search.” Dkt. No. at 27 at 7; see also Dkt. No 30 at 7-8 

(Supp. Resp.). Plaintiffs challenged that additional argument and evidence, asserting that NMFS’s 

 

1

In their Supplemental Response in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, plaintiffs 

described the Tasker memo as follows: “NOAA and NMFS create a record when they process a 

FOIA request. When the request is received the NOAA FOIA office creates a “tasker memo” that 

is then sent to a NMFS lead office. The lead office determines who the appropriate subject matter 

expert is, creates instructions for the search, and then forwards the instructions, the tasker memo, 

and the request to the subject matter expert. See e.g. Supp. Costa Decl., Exs. 16-17.” Dkt. No. 28 

at 11-12 n. 3.

Case 3:14-cv-01130-WHO Document 75 Filed 01/20/16 Page 4 of 9
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

Northern District of California

supplemental declarations supported plaintiffs’ pattern and practice claim. Dkt. No. 28 at 11-13.

Following the additional briefing, Judge Conti again addressed the issue in his October 21, 

2015 Order. He rejected plaintiffs’ contentions and concluded that clear evidence demonstrated 

that the principal subject matter expert started his searches for the two FOIA requests on specific 

dates and included responsive documents from that date. Dkt. No. 31 at 16. Judge Conti 

concluded, “[t]he Court agrees that a better policy is the search start date of each individual SME, 

see Supp. Malbanan Decl. ¶ 18(b), but finds on these specific facts that Mr. Stern’s search alone 

was sufficient to establish when the Department began to search, and thus a cutoff date in these 

particular searches.” Id. Accordingly, the Court found that NMFS fulfilled its obligations as to 

the two FOIA searches at issue and granted summary judgment in NMFS’s favor. Id. at 17.

Plaintiffs now complain that Judge Conti limited his analysis to the two specific FOIA 

requests and did not address plaintiffs’ broader pattern and practice claims. Dkt. No. 32 at 4-5. 

Plaintiffs argue that I should – based on the arguments they presented in their Supplemental 

Response to Judge Conti – rule that the evidence establishes NMFS had a pattern and practice of 

setting improper response dates. Id. at 5. 

NMFS responds that Judge Conti granted summary judgment in their favor on plaintiffs’ 

allegation regarding improper cut-off dates in full, and I agree. As framed by Judge Conti, the 

issue was what the evidence showed. He reviewed the parties’ evidence and their arguments and 

granted summary judgment to NMFS on this claim without reserving the issue of potential pattern 

and practice violations for cutoff dates.2 Any disagreement with Judge Conti’s resolution of this 

issue is appropriately raised on appeal and not before me.

III. FUTURE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF OR DISMISSAL OF CASES

Plaintiffs in OCE I and OCE II also assert that NMFS has a pattern and practice of not 

responding to FOIA requests within the required deadlines. In his July 20, 2015 Order, Judge 

Conti: (i) issued a declaratory judgment that NMFS has violated FOIA’s statutory deadlines in 

 

2

Plaintiffs’ argument that Judge Conti reserved the issue because he intended to view plaintiffs’ 

objections to NMFS’s evidence in light of the “tardy response” pattern and practice claims 

addressed later in the October 21, 2015 Order is not persuasive. 

Case 3:14-cv-01130-WHO Document 75 Filed 01/20/16 Page 5 of 9
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

Northern District of California

responding to plaintiffs’ FOIA requests; (ii) required NMFS to provide supplemental briefing on 

plaintiffs’ pattern and practice claim, but with particular respect to NMFS’s compliance with 

deadlines for one of plaintiffs’ newer FOIA requests; and (iii) ordered NMFS to comply with its 

FOIA 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.” Dkt. No. 25 at 25. Judge Conti 

however, denied without prejudice further injunctive relief “at that time,” based in part on 

plaintiffs repeatedly filing large and complex FOIA requests in rapid succession and evidence that 

NMFS was making a good faith effort to comply with those requests. Id. The Court concluded 

that “[e]vidence 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.” Id.

In the briefing that followed, the parties continued to dispute whether evidence supported 

plaintiffs’ pattern and practice of delay claim and plaintiffs’ argument that further declaratory and 

injunctive relief was necessary. See Dkt. Nos. 27 – 30. In his October 25, 2015 Order, Judge 

Conti reviewed the further briefing and evidence and concluded that “pieces of information 

suggest that insofar as there may have been a pattern-and-practice, it is being corrected.” Dkt. No. 

31 at 18. The evidence, according to Judge Conti, indicated that there was a “trend” towards 

NMFS curing its past delays, the average processing time was decreasing, and the western region 

of NMFS had new procedures in place “using modern software, additional personnel, and policy 

changes (e.g., how the cut-off date changes where there are multiple SMEs assigned) to speed up 

its process.” Id. However, that “hopeful news is eclipsed by the evidence the Court has received 

showing an unmistakable history that the Fisheries Service fails to meet its statutory deadlines 

under FOIA,” in part based upon “the sheer volume of the violation history evidenced just 

between Plaintiffs and the Fisheries Service” and based on evidence of NMFS’s backlog on other 

requests. Id. at 19. 

Case 3:14-cv-01130-WHO Document 75 Filed 01/20/16 Page 6 of 9
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

Northern District of California

Judge Conti weighed the evidence of past and continued violations as well as the good 

faith efforts of NMFS to correct them. He relied on his continuing “belief that some leniency in 

the exercise of [his] discretion” was warranted and ruled as follows:

GRANTS declaratory relief and states: (1) that the Fisheries Service 

has previously been engaged in a pattern-and-practice of failure to 

meet FOIA deadlines; (2) that the Fisheries Service has previously 

provided responses that were frequently and unreasonably delayed; 

(3) that due to these delays the Fisheries Service effectively 

provided no ability to FOIA requestors to anticipate when data 

might be provided; and (4) that due to these delays information was 

often provided after a long enough period of time that the data could 

be out-of-date, effectively negating its value and effectuating a 

complete denial of information.

The Court also GRANTS a limited form of injunctive relief, and 

ORDERS that, in addition to its earlier Declaratory Relief, and 

insofar as any production to Plaintiffs remains outstanding in any

FOIA request made on or prior to September 9, 2015 (the date of the 

last filed supplemental brief), all final results of such searches be 

provided within 30 days of the date of this Order.

Yet the Court is still sympathetic to the fact that the Fisheries 

Service continues to receive ongoing, complex FOIA responses, 

flooding it with administrative work which interferes with its 

primary duties -- and now the Fisheries Service will need to take 

even more of its time to answer the below inquiries of the Court. 

Moreover, the Court recognizes it has not provided the Fisheries 

Service enough time since issuing its Declaratory Relief to 

reasonably remedy this pattern-and-practice. The Court believes that 

the current efforts of the Fisheries Services will assist in this goal. 

Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion to DENY WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE any further injunctive relief at this time.

This grace period is subject to continued, clear, and effective efforts 

by the Fisheries Service that it is curing its prior legal violations. 

How precisely to continue such efforts or organize an agency to best 

comply with the law is beyond the purview of the Court. Such fixes 

and organization must come from the Fisheries Service itself, other 

agencies that control the Fisheries Service, the Executive, or 

Congress. The Court therefore ORDERS the Fisheries Service to 

SHOW CAUSE how it is curing its prior legal violations to a 

sufficient degree the Court should continue to withhold injunctive 

relief. To meet this showing, the Fisheries Service is ORDERED to 

submit a document detailing precisely the status of its backlog, how 

the Fisheries Service intends to (or has been) fixing the problem, the 

effectiveness of recent changes in eliminating the backlog, how the 

Fisheries Service will ensure any immediate success will persist 

beyond the involvement of the Court, and any other information that 

may be useful for the Court to consider.

Id. at 20-21. 

Case 3:14-cv-01130-WHO Document 75 Filed 01/20/16 Page 7 of 9
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

Northern District of California

In response to the Order to Show Cause, NMFS submitted a detailed description of the 

current status of the backlog, supported by the declarations of Paul Doremus and Barry Tom. Dkt. 

No. 34. NMFS contends that a dismissal is appropriate because it has reduced its backlog by 78% 

since June 2014 and expects to eliminate it in its West Coast Region (“WCR”) soon. Doremus 

Decl. ¶ 9; Thom Decl. ¶ 3 (noting that as of November 19, 2015, WCR only has three backlogged 

requests, which were on hold for identified reasons). NMFS also explains in detail how it 

achieved its progress on the issues identified by Judge Conti; its technical, administrative, and 

staffing improvements. Doremus Decl. ¶¶ 15-22; Thom Decl. ¶¶ 7, 8-11, 13, 18, 23.

In response, plaintiffs do not dispute the substance of the evidence provided by NMFS. 

Instead, they point to alleged delays by NMFS in responding to additional FOIA requests from 

plaintiffs. Dkt. No. 35. They complain that NMFS has failed to provide a final response to an 

October 28, 2015 FOIA request seeking updated information on the Stanford project and a 

November 14, 2015 FOIA request designed to “find out more about NMFS’s FOIA compliance 

efforts.” Id. at 2. Plaintiffs also assert that NMFS has not completed its response to the October 

28 and November 14 requests (although they fail to acknowledge that NMFS denied the fee 

waiver request in part which, NMFS argues, suspends the response deadlines). See NMFS 

Supplemental Response (Dkt. No. 36) at 2 (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A); 15 C.F.R. § 4.11(j)). 

Plaintiffs further contend that in response to an August 18, 2015 FOIA request, NMFS withheld 

one document pending review for release by the EPA, and that the EPA is apparently being 

dilatory in their review of that document. Dkt. No. 35 at 3. Lastly, plaintiffs argue that the 

evidence of improvement and commitment to continued improvement by NMFS is insufficient in 

light of past FOIA litigation conducted by plaintiffs’ counsel where NSFS’s assertions that it was 

improving its FOIA response times by implementing new computer systems and adding personnel 

did not actually result in improvements. Dkt. No. 35 at 9-10.

In light of these “ongoing failures” to comply with FOIA, plaintiffs argue that I should 

retain jurisdiction. They ask that I (i) order NMFS to comply with Judge Conti’s previous order 

and issue a final decision on the still-pending October 31, 2015 FOIA administrative appeal and 

provide responses to the August 18 and October 28 requests; and (ii) keep the present orders “in 

Case 3:14-cv-01130-WHO Document 75 Filed 01/20/16 Page 8 of 9
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

Northern District of California

effect,” requiring NMFS to comply with FOIA deadlines and to submit a response to a further 

order to show cause after six months as to why a broader injunction should not issue.

Having considered the evidence submitted in response to Judge Conti’s Order to Show 

Cause, as well as the prior record in this case, I find that further injunctive relief is not warranted. 

In particular, the hard evidence provided about WCR’s elimination of its backlog and the actual 

hiring of additional staff (as opposed to the mere promise or expectation of hiring additional staff), 

lead me to conclude that further injunctive relief is not warranted and that this case should, finally, 

come to its conclusion. It is apparent – as Judge Conti found – that NMFS was at one time 

routinely failing to obey FOIA’s deadlines. It is also apparent that NMFS has made significant 

improvements and structural changes (in technology and staffing) that are to continue in the 

future. For purposes of these cases, that is enough.

CONCLUSION

Having fully reviewed the record in these related cases, I conclude that no further action by 

the Court is warranted. Within 10 days of the date of this Order the parties shall submit a 

stipulated form of judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2016

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01130-WHO Document 75 Filed 01/20/16 Page 9 of 9