Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-05777/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-05777-4/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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE LANE,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 03-5777 CW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S

MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

moves for summary judgment. Plaintiff Jesse Lane has filed a

statement of non-opposition to Defendant's motion. Having

considered the papers filed by the parties and evidence cited

therein, the Court grants Defendant's motion and vacates the

hearing scheduled for March 10, 2006.

Case 4:03-cv-05777-CW Document 47 Filed 02/23/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

BACKGROUND

On May 13, 2003, Plaintiff filed a FOIA request seeking "[a]ll

documents, including documents regarding communications, concerning

any agreement or arrangement, informal, formal or otherwise,

between HUD and Chicago Title regarding the provision of title

insurance, escrow or related services by Chicago Title to HUD for

properties sold by HUD in California at any point since July 1,

1994." Complaint at ¶ 6 (alteration in original). Defendant

reviewed its records and advised Plaintiff that it had no contracts

with Chicago Title in California during the time period in

question; thus, there were no responsive documents. Plaintiff

appealed Defendant's denial of Plaintiff's FOIA request. Defendant

again reviewed its records, confirmed that it had no contracts with

Chicago Title in California during the relevant time period and

denied Plaintiff's appeal. Cheng Dec., Ex. C.

On December 22, 2003, Plaintiff filed this action. Defendant

again searched its records and found no documents responsive to

Plaintiff's FOIA request. In addition to searching for responsive

documents, Defendant produced several witnesses for depositions and

provided documents in response to Plaintiff's document demands,

which went beyond the scope of Plaintiff's original FOIA request. 

Cheng Dec. ¶ 6. Plaintiff deposed Defendant's person most

knowledgeable, who testified that he had no knowledge of any

negotiations between HUD and Chicago Title with respect to

providing escrow, title insurance or real estate settlement

services in connection with the sale of HUD property in California

from 1994 to the present. Cheng Dec., Ex. D. 

Case 4:03-cv-05777-CW Document 47 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is properly granted when no genuine and

disputed issues of material fact remain, and when, viewing the

evidence most favorably to the non-moving party, the movant is

clearly entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ.

Proc. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986);

Eisenberg v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 815 F.2d 1285, 1288-89 (9th Cir.

1987).

Material facts which would preclude entry of summary judgment

are those which, under applicable substantive law, may affect the

outcome of the case. The substantive law will identify which facts

are material. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

(1986).

The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no

material factual dispute. Therefore, the Court must regard as true

the opposing party's evidence, if supported by affidavits or other

evidentiary material. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Eisenberg, 815

F.2d at 1289. The Court must draw all reasonable inferences in

favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. 

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,

587 (1986); Intel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 952 F.2d

1551, 1558 (9th Cir. 1991).

Where the moving party does not bear the burden of proof on an

issue at trial, the moving party may discharge its burden of

showing that no genuine issue of material fact remains by

demonstrating that "there is an absence of evidence to support the

nonmoving party's case." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. The moving

Case 4:03-cv-05777-CW Document 47 Filed 02/23/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

party is not required to produce evidence showing the absence of a

material fact on such issues, nor must the moving party support its

motion with evidence negating the non-moving party's claim. Id.;

see also Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 885 (1990);

Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991). If

the moving party shows an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case, the burden then shifts to the opposing party

to produce "specific evidence, through affidavits or admissible

discovery material, to show that the dispute exists." Bhan, 929

F.2d at 1409. A complete failure of proof concerning an essential

element of the non-moving party's case necessarily renders all

other facts immaterial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.

DISCUSSION

To succeed on summary judgment, an agency claiming to have

discharged its FOIA disclosure requirements must show, viewing the

facts in the light most favorable to the requester, that the agency

has conducted a “search reasonably calculated to uncover all

relevant documents.” Steinberg v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 23 F.3d

548, 551 (D.C. Cir. 1994). The question 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. 

Defendant presents evidence that it has conducted such a

search. Plaintiff provides no evidence suggesting otherwise. As

noted above, Plaintiff has filed a statement of non-opposition to

Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendant's motion for summary

Case 4:03-cv-05777-CW Document 47 Filed 02/23/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

judgment is GRANTED (Docket No. 42). The Clerk shall enter 

judgment in favor of Defendant. Defendant shall recover its costs

from Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/23/06

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-05777-CW Document 47 Filed 02/23/06 Page 5 of 5