Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-03731/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-03731-0/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

---

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

SHYAM K. CHETAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-03731-EMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO EXPEDITE DISCOVERY

Docket No. 19

Plaintiff Shyam K. Chetal, proceeding pro se, has filed suit against federal government 

entities and employees, asserting that they have failed to comply with the Freedom of Information 

Act (“FOIA”). Currently pending before the Court is Mr. Chetal’s motion to expedite discovery. 

The motion is DENIED. Mr. Chetal’s reliance on 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E) is misplaced. 

That statute is inapplicable. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E) (providing that an “agency shall 

promulgate regulations . . . providing for expedited processing of requests for records,” e.g., “in 

cases in which the person requesting the records demonstrates a compelling need”). It does not 

apply to discovery.

To obtain expedited discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d), a party must 

show good cause. See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 

2002). Mr. Chetal has failed to make a showing of good cause for expedited discovery in the 

instant case. 

Furthermore, the Court takes note that

FOIA cases are often decided on motions for summary judgment 

because the facts are rarely in dispute. While courts have discretion 

to permit discovery in FOIA cases, discovery in such cases is 

limited “because the underlying case revolves around the propriety 

of revealing certain documents.” Consequently, “courts routinely 

Case 3:18-cv-03731-EMC Document 26 Filed 10/22/18 Page 1 of 2
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

delay discovery until after summary judgment in [FOIA cases] . . . 

and [the Ninth Circuit] has affirmed denials of discovery where . . . 

the plaintiff’s requests consisted of ‘precisely what defendants 

maintain is exempt from disclosure to plaintiff pursuant to the 

FOIA.’”

Carlson v. United States Postal Serv., No. 15-cv-06055-JCS, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132599, at 

*28-29 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017).

To the extent Mr. Chetal has moved for a preliminary injunction, see Docket No. 21 

(declaration from Mr. Chetal, stating that it is being submitted in support of a preliminary 

injunction), the request for relief is also denied. He has failed to show, inter alia, a likelihood of 

success on the merits or irreparable injury. See Pom Wonderful Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Hubbard, 775 

F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating that, “the moving party must establish that: (1) it is likely 

to succeed on the merits; (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 

relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in its favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2018

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-03731-EMC Document 26 Filed 10/22/18 Page 2 of 2