Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04992/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04992-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD SNYDER,

Plaintiff,

v

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE et al,

Defendant. /

No C-03-4992 VRW

ORDER

By order dated February 2, 2005, the court reserved

decision on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment

regarding the propriety of a fee that was charged to plaintiff in

connection with his request under the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA). Doc #44. The court determined that such a challenge was

properly cognizable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5

USC § 706(2), and permitted the parties to file further motions for

summary judgment. Doc #44 at 14:14-27. The court further ordered

that all evidentiary material in support of such further motions be

filed anew. Id. The parties did file further motions (Doc ##45,

48) and supporting papers (Doc ##46, 49, 50, 58, 61). At the

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 67 Filed 04/29/05 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

hearing on April 7, 2005, the court suggested that proceedings

would be expedited if the parties would stipulate to treating the

cross-motions for summary judgment as a bench trial on the papers

submitted (including the administrative record, Doc #8). The

parties agreed. Accordingly, the court makes the following

findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the socalled CAGE Code fee (the “fee”).

The court finds that plaintiff was charged a total of

$75.17. See, e g, Hill Decl (Doc #50) ¶4; Administrative Record

(AR) tab 10. This represents the sum of several component charges,

found at AR tab 8, which the court will address in turn:

1. $3.67 for 5 minutes of GS-12/10 analyst time at

$44/hour to “prepare and e-mail 522 to DISA”

2. $3.67 for 5 minutes of GS-12/10 analyst time at

$44/hour to “enter customer and job information into

workload tracking database”

3a. $2.20 for 3 minutes of GS-12/10 analyst time at

$44/hour to create/find a JCL program to transfer

the CAGE code file from tape to disk

3b. A charge for computer processor time to transfer the

CAGE code file from tape to disk

4a. $1.47 for 2 minutes of GS-12/10 analyst time at

$44/hour to create/find a program to compress the

CAGE code file

4b. A charge for computer processor time to compress the

CAGE code file

5a. $1.47 for 2 minutes of GS-12/10 analyst time at

$44/hour to create/find a program to FTP (transfer)

the CAGE code file to plaintiff

5b. A charge for computer processor time to transfer the

CAGE code file to plaintiff

The aggregate charge by defendants for computer time was for nine

minutes of CPU time (AR tab 10) for a cost of $62.70. (Due to

rounding, the sum of the above charges is actually $75.18.)

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 67 Filed 04/29/05 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

The court first addresses the charges for analyst time.

The court finds that component (1) relates to internal

communications at defendants’ offices regarding the processing of

plaintiff’s request; “522” refers to the FOIA statute, 5 USC § 552. 

FOIA provides that fee schedules, such as defendants have

promulgated, AR tab 2, “shall provide for the recovery of only the

direct costs of search, duplication, or review.” The activities

described in component (1) are plainly neither “search” nor

“duplication.” Although “[r]eview costs” include some preparatory

work, such as “initial examination of a document for the purposes

of determining whether the documents must be disclosed,” the court

finds that the activity in component (1) is not “review” within the

meaning of FOIA. Accordingly, the court holds that defendants’

charging of plaintiff for component (1) is “not in accordance with

law,” 5 USC § 706(2)(A).

Much the same analysis applies to component (2), which

the court finds relates to defendants’ internal recordkeeping. 

This is not properly chargeable to plaintiff under FOIA. 

Accordingly, the court holds that defendants’ charging of plaintiff

for component (2) is “not in accordance with law,” 5 USC §

706(2)(A).

In contrast, components (3a), (4a) and (5a) are related

to “duplication.” Plaintiff disputes the amount of time incurred

in each step and the rate charged, but the court finds these

accurately reflect defendants’ costs. Accordingly, these charges

are proper.

Likewise, the fact that plaintiff was charged for the

corresponding computer time in components (3b), (4b) and (5b) is

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 67 Filed 04/29/05 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

not improper. The court credits the declaration of Robert Porter,

one of defendants’ employees. Porter Decl (Doc #61). For perhaps

the first time in this litigation, the parties have been able to

put before the court evidence from an individual with personal and

technical knowledge of the facts in issue in this case. It is for

this reason that the court credits Porter’s declaration.

Plaintiff also disputes the amount of the charges for

components (3b), (4b) and (5b). The court finds that defendants

are correct in that “raw” processor time must be converted via a

“normalization factor” into “normalized” processor time, because

different processors run at different speeds. See, e g, AR tab 4. 

As such, the court has no basis on which to set aside the perminute charges for processor use.

With respect to the amount of processor use, the court

acknowledges that various documents in the administrative record

suggest different total job times. Compare AR tab 4 (3:57 CPU min)

with AR tab 8 (1:48.25 CPU min total) with AR tab 10 (9 CPU min). 

In particular, there is some suggestion that the 9 minute figure

(which was actually charged to plaintiff) represents running “the

job 2 times.” AR tab 11. But plaintiff’s challenge is confined to

(1) being charged at all for certain tasks and (2) the use of a

normalization factor. The court has rejected both of these

challenges, and, accordingly, the court holds that no computer

charges were inappropriate.

In sum, the court concludes that defendants’ charge of a

total of 10 minutes of analyst time at $44/hour -- or $7.33 -- was

improper. All other charges were not arbitrary or capricious or

not in accordance with law.

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 67 Filed 04/29/05 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

Accordingly, the court hereby declares that plaintiff

owes defendants $67.84 for the processing of the CAGE code fee

request that is the subject of this litigation. The clerk is

directed to TERMINATE the cross-motions for summary judgment (Doc

##45, 48).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 67 Filed 04/29/05 Page 5 of 5