Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04760/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04760-1/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

---

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

GREGORY J. LAROCHE,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-4760 CW

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AND GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S

CROSS-MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Plaintiff Gregory J. LaRoche moves for summary judgment on his

claims that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has

violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and

the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706, and

his claim for relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA), 28

U.S.C. §2201. Defendant opposes this motion and cross-moves for

summary judgment. The matter was decided on the papers. Having

Case 4:05-cv-04760-CW Document 41 Filed 10/06/06 Page 1 of 10
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

considered all of the papers filed by the parties, the Court denies

Plaintiff's motion and grants Defendant's cross-motion.

BACKGROUND

This dispute stems from two separate FOIA requests filed by

Plaintiff with the SEC. Both requests were related to information

filed on the Uniform Application for Broker-Dealer Registration

(Form BD). The Form BD is used by the SEC, the National

Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), and individual

States. A broker-dealer must file a Form BD with the SEC in order

to begin business. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

between the SEC and the NASD, broker-dealers file Form BD

electronically through the internet-based Central Registration

Depository (WebCRD), an electronic database owned and operated by

the NASD. 

On April 6, 2005, LaRoche filed a FOIA request with the SEC

seeking an electronic document including information from fifteen

data fields from Forms BD. The SEC issued its final determination

on the request on June 10, 2005. The agency provided the

electronic data for eight of the fifteen fields and offered to

provide the remaining information in hard copy. In the

alternative, the agency recommended that LaRoche contact the NASD

directly regarding his needs. LaRoche appealed the determination

on June 24, 2005. The SEC denied the appeal on September 23, 2005,

noting that LaRoche had declined to accept the eight fields of

information available in electronic format, and reminding him that

the remaining information is publicly available in hard copy

through the SEC's Public Reference Room.

Case 4:05-cv-04760-CW Document 41 Filed 10/06/06 Page 2 of 10
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

On September 29, 2005, LaRoche sent a second FOIA request,

seeking documents discussing the SEC's ability to access electronic

Form BD data filed on WebCRD, contracts or agreements between the

SEC and the NASD regarding the SEC's access to electronic Form BD

data, and any other document or record regarding the SEC's ability

to access electronic data filed with NASD, including communications

between the SEC and the NASD. After consulting with SEC staff, the

agency provided three documents to LaRoche on January 27, 2006. 

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. P.

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).

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). 

Material facts which would preclude entry of summary judgment

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

Case 4:05-cv-04760-CW Document 41 Filed 10/06/06 Page 3 of 10
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

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

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

(1986).

Where the moving party bears the burden of proof on an issue

at trial, it must, in order to discharge its burden of showing that

no genuine issue of material fact remains, make a prima facie

showing in support of its position on that issue. UA Local 343 v.

Nor-Cal Plumbing, Inc., 48 F.3d 1465, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994). That

is, the moving party must present evidence that, if uncontroverted

at trial, would entitle it to prevail on that issue. Id.; see also

Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1264-65 (5th

Cir. 1991). Once it has done so, the non-moving party must set

forth specific facts controverting the moving party's prima facie

case. UA Local 343, 48 F.3d at 1471. The non-moving party's

"burden of contradicting [the moving party's] evidence is not

negligible." Id. This standard does not change merely because

resolution of the relevant issue is "highly fact specific." Id.

Both parties agree that FOIA suits should be resolved on motions

for summary judgment. Miscavige v. IRS, 2 F.3d 366, 369 (11th Cir.

1993).

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

Case 4:05-cv-04760-CW Document 41 Filed 10/06/06 Page 4 of 10
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

exist any other documents possibly responsive to the request, but

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

In determining whether the agency has met its burden of

establishing an adequate search, "the court may rely on a

reasonably detailed affidavit, setting forth the search terms and

the type of search performed, and averring that all files likely to

contain responsive materials (if such records exist) were searched. 

However, if a review of the record raises substantial doubt,

particularly in view of well defined requests and positive

indications of overlooked materials, summary judgment is

inappropriate." Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321,

326 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

I. April 6, 2005 Request for Electronic Data

Plaintiff LaRoche argues that the information filed on Form BD

is an SEC agency record, subject to the FOIA, and that the SEC must

therefore provide the data to him in electronic form. The SEC does

not dispute that the information filed on Form BD is an agency

record and subject to the FOIA. Rather, the SEC contends that it

does not maintain all of the data in electronic format, and that it

cannot therefore be required to produce that data in electronic

format.

The Supreme Court has held that "only the Federal Records Act,

and not the FOIA, requires an agency to actually create records,

even though the agency's failure to do so deprives the public of

information which might have otherwise been available to it." 

Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 445 U.S. 136,

151 (1980) (internal citation omitted). Therefore, courts have

Case 4:05-cv-04760-CW Document 41 Filed 10/06/06 Page 5 of 10
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 6

noted that "[i]t is well settled that an agency is not required by

FOIA to create a document that does not exist in order to satisfy a

request [and therefore, a] requester is entitled only to records

that an agency has in fact chosen to create and retain." Yeager v.

Drug Enforcement Admin., 678 F.2d 315, 321 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (citing

NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 161-62 (1975)). 

With respect to form, FOIA requires that agencies must provide

documents in "any form or format requested . . . if the record is

readily reproducible in that form or format." 5 U.S.C. 

§ 552(a)(3)(B). Although Plaintiff demonstrates the SEC's

undisputed ability to access much of the information in the WebCRD,

it is unable to rebut the SEC's assertion that it can only see that

information for one broker at a time, making it impossible to

create the type of searchable electronic document that Plaintiff

seeks. Plaintiff further suggests that there are no legal or

technological impediments to the SEC ordering an ad hoc report from

the NASD containing the fields of information requested. However,

the SEC is not obliged to create records which it does not already

have. 

The SEC has presented evidence that it does not have access to

all of the data that Plaintiff requests in electronic format. 

Further, it has demonstrated that it cannot readily reproduce in

electronic format the fields of data that are not already available

electronically. Declarations and deposition testimony establish

that the SEC could scan the hard copies to make them electronic

files; however, Plaintiff has not established that those electronic

files would meet his request. The SEC states that the only other

Case 4:05-cv-04760-CW Document 41 Filed 10/06/06 Page 6 of 10
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 7

way to create a searchable electronic file would be for an SEC

staff member to cut and paste each cell of data from the individual

electronic records into another document for Plaintiff. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff's requested format is

not readily available. 

It is undisputed that the SEC has offered Plaintiff all of the

information requested and has failed only to provide that

information in the format requested. Further, Plaintiff has not

demonstrated that the SEC has ever gathered the requested

information in his desired format. Compare TPS, Inc. v. U.S. Dept.

of Defense, 330 F.3d 1191, 1196-97 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that

under Department of Defense regulations, agency was required to

produce zipped files where technical capability was not at issue

and agency regularly reproduced data in zipped format). 

Because the information is not readily reproducible in the

format Plaintiff requests, the Court finds that the SEC has not

violated the FOIA. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion

for summary judgment and grants Defendant's cross-motion with

respect to Plaintiff's April 6, 2005 FOIA request. 

II. September 29, 2005 Request for Information Related to

Communications Between the SEC and the NASD Regarding the 

WebCRD

LaRoche also argues that the SEC failed to meet its burden of

presenting evidence demonstrating the adequacy of its search for

records related to his second FOIA request. However, the SEC has

provided evidence that it requested relevant information from each

of the appropriate departments and that it provided Plaintiff's

full request to those departments for purposes of structuring the

Case 4:05-cv-04760-CW Document 41 Filed 10/06/06 Page 7 of 10
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 8

search. Plaintiff has not rebutted this evidence. 

Plaintiff relies on this Court's order granting his Rule 56(f)

motion as evidence that Defendant has not produced sufficient

evidence to establish the adequacy of its search. However, the

Court granted the Rule 56(f) continuance to allow Plaintiff to

produce evidence to oppose Defendant's motion, evidence that

Plaintiff has been unable find. Here, unlike cases where courts

have found that an agency's evidence regarding the adequacy of its

search has been rebutted by a plaintiff's evidence, there are no

specific allegations of departments that should have been searched,

methods that would have produced additional materials or examples

of documents that should have been but were not produced. Compare

Duenas Iturralde v. Comptroller of the Currency, 315 F.3d 311, 315

(D.C. Cir. 2003) (considering whether agency "failed to search

particular offices or files where the document might well have been

found," "failed or refused to interview government officials for

whom there was strong evidence that they might have been helpful in

finding the missing documents," or "ignored indications in

documents found in its initial search that there were additional

responsive documents elsewhere"); Valencia-Lucina, 180 F.3d at 327

(citing "positive indications of overlooked materials").

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not rebutted the SEC's

evidence that it conducted a reasonable search. "[M]ere

speculation that as yet uncovered documents may exist does not

undermine the finding that the agency conducted a reasonable search

for them." Safecard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1201 (D.C.

Cir. 1991). The Court denies Plaintiff's motion for summary

Case 4:05-cv-04760-CW Document 41 Filed 10/06/06 Page 8 of 10
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

1

The FOIA requires agencies to make final determinations of

FOIA requests and appeals within twenty days absent a notification

of unusual circumstances. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6).

9

judgment and grants Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment

with respect to Plaintiff's September 29, 2005 FOIA request. 

III. Administrative Procedure Act Claim

In addition to his claims under the FOIA, Plaintiff argues

that he is entitled to summary judgment on his claim for relief

under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) based on the SEC's

procedural deficiencies in responding to his FOIA requests.1

However, as the SEC points out, and LaRoche acknowledges, the APA

can only provide the basis for relief from agency action where

there is no other remedy at law. 

FOIA allows plaintiffs to file a motion in a district court,

seeking an order compelling the agency to produce documents. See 5

U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) ("[T]he district court . . . has jurisdiction

to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order

the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the

complainant."). As other courts have noted, this remedy is

identical to any remedy Plaintiff would be able to seek under the

APA. See, e.g., Walsh v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 400 F.3d

535, 538 (7th Cir. 2005); Edmonds Inst. v. U.S. Dept. of the

Interior, 383 F. Supp. 2d 105, 112, n.10 (D.C. Cir. 2005). 

The Court finds that there is no basis for Plaintiff's claim

under the APA and therefore denies Plaintiff's motion for summary

judgment and grants Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment

with respect to Plaintiff's claim for relief under the APA. 

Case 4:05-cv-04760-CW Document 41 Filed 10/06/06 Page 9 of 10
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 10

IV. Declaratory Judgment Act Claim

LaRoche further seeks relief under the Declaratory Judgment

Act (DJA), stating that he is entitled to declaratory judgment 

(1) that the SEC violated the FOIA by failing to provide all of the

requested records in electronic format pursuant to the April 6,

2005 request, (2) that he is entitled to receive electronic format

data in response to that request and similar future requests and

(3) that the SEC has violated the FOIA by failing to adhere to the

statute's deadlines. The Court finds that LaRoche has failed to

establish that he is entitled to relief on any of the underlying

claims, and therefore he cannot be entitled to relief under the

DJA. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion

for summary judgment (Docket No. 15) and GRANTS Defendant's crossmotion for summary judgment (Docket No. 26). Judgment shall enter

accordingly. Defendant shall recover its costs from Plaintiff. 

The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/6/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-04760-CW Document 41 Filed 10/06/06 Page 10 of 10