Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01900/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01900-1/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

---

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LION RAISINS, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) 

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )

AGRICULTURE; UNITED STATES )

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:09-cv-01900-OWW-SMS

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

Motions for Summary Judgment

Filing Deadline: 7/16/10

Responses to Motions for

Summary Judgment

Filing Deadline: 8/13/10

Replies to Responses to

Motions for Summary Judgment

Filing Deadline: 8/27/10

Hearing on Motions for

Summary Judgment:

9/13/10, 10:00am, Ctrm. 3/OWW

1. Date of Scheduling Conference:

February 3, 2010.

2. Appearances of Counsel:

Wesley T. Green, Esq., Corporate Counsel, appeared

telephonically on behalf of plaintiff.

Assistant United States Attorney Benjamin E. Hall

appeared on behalf of defendants.

//

1

Case 1:09-cv-01900-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 02/05/10 Page 1 of 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

3. The Pleadings:

A. Summary of the Pleadings.

This is an action under the Freedom of Information

Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Plaintiff, a raisin handler, alleges

in its Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

[FOIA] that defendants have improperly withheld records requested

by plaintiff under FOIA. The Complaint contains ten counts,

summarized briefly as follows:

Count 1. FOIA Log 08-00114, Appeal Log No. 08-00139 and

09-00010: OIG Chain of Custody Records for Seized Shipping Files.

Plaintiff alleges that the USDA has wrongfully withheld records

relating to custody of export shipping files seized from plaintiff

in 2000.

Count 2. FOIA No. 08-1184, Appeal No. 08-2635: DOJ Chain

of Custody Records for Seized Shipping Files. Plaintiff alleges

that the DOJ has wrongfully withheld records relating to custody of

export shipping files seized from plaintiff in 2000.

Count 3. FOIA Request Nos. 92-08; Appeal 3-09: 410

Outside Orders from 1997/1998 ($1,606.82 Paid Under Protest). 

Plaintiff alleges that the USDA has wrongfully refused to reimburse

plaintiff for $1,606.82 in search costs relating to Outside Order

forms.

Count 4. FOIA Request No. 46-09: 760 Additional Outside

Orders (Overpayment of $746.20). Plaintiff alleges that the USDA

has wrongfully withheld Outside Order forms and wrongfully refused

to reimburse plaintiff for an overpayment in the amount of $746.20.

Count 5. FOIA Request No. [Unassigned]: RAC-Retained

Certificates. Plaintiff alleges that the USDA has wrongfully

2

Case 1:09-cv-01900-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 02/05/10 Page 2 of 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

withheld records relating to certificates received by the Raisin

Administrative Committee for raisins packed at plaintiff.

Count 6. FOIA No. 19-09: Waiver of Conflicts Between Mr.

Blevins and Mrs. Carroll-Blevins. Plaintiff alleges that the USDA

has wrongfully withheld records relating to waivers of conflict of

interest between USDA attorney Colleen A. Carroll and former

Agricultural Marketing Service Compliance Officer G. Neil Blevins.

Count 7. FOIA No. [Unassigned]: Former USDA Employees

Retained to Work on Lion Cases. Plaintiff alleges that the USDA

has wrongfully withheld records relating to retention of former

USDA employees to work on matters relating to plaintiff.

Count 8. FOIA No. [Unassigned]: Notice Restoring USDA

Inspection Service to Debarred Companies. Plaintiff alleges that

the USDA has wrongfully withheld records relating to the withdrawal

or restoration of USDA inspection services for other raisin

handlers.

Count 9. FOIA No. 59-09: Electronic Records of

Certificate Worksheets. Plaintiff alleges that the USDA has

wrongfully withheld electronic records of Certificate Worksheets.

Count 10. FOIA No. 09-00136: OIG Reports. Plaintiff

alleges that the USDA has wrongfully withheld records relating to

an Office of Inspector General Report of Investigation dated May

14, 2001.

Plaintiff requests that the Court order defendants to

disclose and provide physical access to records, reimburse funds to

plaintiff, and award plaintiff its costs and attorneys’ fees.

Defendants admit that plaintiff has submitted various

FOIA requests; that records have been produced in response to some

3

Case 1:09-cv-01900-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 02/05/10 Page 3 of 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

of those requests; that other records were not located despite

reasonable searches; deny that they have improperly withheld

records or funds from plaintiff; deny each and every allegation of

improper conduct and bad faith; deny that plaintiff is entitled to

any relief whatsoever; and, request that the Complaint be dismissed

with prejudice.

B. Orders Re: Amendment of Pleadings.

No amendments are proposed at this time.

4. Factual Summary:

A. Admitted Facts which are deemed proven without 

further proceedings.

(1) Plaintiff is a raisin handler and is regulated

by a federal marketing order.

(2) The USDA provides inspection and grading

services.

(3) The USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service

commenced an investigation of plaintiff, and a search warrant was

executed at plaintiff in October of 2000.

(4) The USDA commenced administrative proceedings

to debar plaintiff from inspection services; and, while those

proceedings have been pending, plaintiff has submitted numerous

FOIA requests.

(5) Plaintiff has filed appeals from the USDA’s

responses to various FOIA requests.

B. Contested Facts.

(1) All other factual matters.

//

/

4

Case 1:09-cv-01900-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 02/05/10 Page 4 of 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

5. Legal Issues:

A. Uncontested.

(1) Venue

B. Contested.

(1) All other legal issues.

6. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction:

This case will not be assigned for all purposes,

including trial, to the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States

Magistrate Judge, as the parties do not so consent at this time.

7. Corporate Identification Statement:

Any non-governmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court, and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the information.

8. Discovery Plan:

Because this is a FOIA case, it will proceed to summary

judgment without discovery. However, plaintiff may request that

the Court authorize discovery following the parties’ briefing on

summary judgment.

9. Motion Schedule:

The parties shall file motions for summary judgment by

July 16, 2010, responses thereto by August 13, 2010, replies

thereto by August 27, 2010, for a hearing on September 13, 2010 at

10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 3 on the Seventh Floor before the

Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States District Judge. Local

Rules 230 and 260.

5

Case 1:09-cv-01900-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 02/05/10 Page 5 of 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

Motions for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication

Prior to filing a motion for summary judgment or motion

for summary adjudication, the parties are ORDERED to meet, in

person or by telephone, and confer to discuss the issues to be

raised in the motion.

The purpose of the meeting shall be to: (1) avoid filing

motions for summary judgment where a question of fact exists; (2)

determine whether the respondent agrees that the motion has merit

in whole or in part; (3) discuss whether issues can be resolved

without the necessity of briefing; (4) narrow the issues for review

by the Court; (5) explore the possibility of settlement before the

parties incur the expense of briefing a summary judgment motion;

(6) arrive at a joint statement of undisputed facts.

The moving party shall initiate the meeting and provide a

draft of the joint statement of undisputed facts. In addition to

the requirements of Local Rule 260, the moving party shall file a

joint statement of undisputed facts. 

In the notice of motion, the moving party shall certify

that the parties have met and conferred as ordered above or set

forth a statement of good cause for the failure to meet and confer. 

10. Settlement Conference:

Global settlement negotiations are ongoing between the

USDA and plaintiff. If such a settlement is reached, it is

expected to include all pending FOIA litigation, including this

lawsuit. Should the parties desire a Settlement Conference, they

will jointly request one of the Court, and one will be arranged.

//

/

6

Case 1:09-cv-01900-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 02/05/10 Page 6 of 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

11. Request for Bifurcation, Appointment of Special Master,

or other Techniques to Shorten Trial:

Not applicable at this time.

12. Related Matters Pending:

Another FOIA lawsuit entitled Lion Raisins, Inc. vs.

United States Department of Agriculture, 1:08-cv-00358-OWW-SMS,

also relating to raisin inspection records, remains pending.

13. Compliance with Federal Procedure:

The Court requires compliance with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern

District of California. To aid the Court in the efficient

administration of this case, all counsel are expected to

familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of

California, and to keep abreast of any amendments thereto (revised

December 1, 2009). The Court must insist upon compliance with

these Rules if it is to efficiently handle its increasing caseload. 

Sanctions will be imposed for failure to follow the Rules as

provided in both the Fed.R.Civ.P. and the Local Rules.

14. Compliance with Electronic Filing Requirement:

On January 3, 2005, the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of California became an electronic case

management/filing district (CM/ECF). Unless excused by the Court,

or by Local Rule, attorneys shall file all documents electronically

as of January 3, 2005, in all actions pending before the court.

While Pro Se Litigants are exempt from this requirement, the court

will scan in all documents filed by pro se litigants, and the

official court record in all cases will be electronic. Attorneys

7

Case 1:09-cv-01900-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 02/05/10 Page 7 of 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

are required to file electronically in pro se cases. More

information regarding the Court’s implementation of CM/ECF can be

found on the court’s web site at www.caed.uscourts.gov, including

the Local Rules effective January 3, 2005, and amended December 1,

2009, the CM/ECF Final Procedures, and the CM/ECF User’s Manual.

While the Clerk's Office will not refuse to file a

proffered paper document, the Clerk's Office will scan it and, if

improperly filed, notify the Court that the document was filed in

an improper format. An order to show cause (OSC) may be issued in

appropriate cases regarding an attorney's disregard for the

requirement to utilize electronic filing, or other violations of

these electronic filing procedures. See L.R. 110, L.R. 133(d)(3).

All counsel must be registered for CM/ECF. On-line

registration is available at www.caed.uscourts.gov. Once

registered, counsel will receive a login and password in

approximately one (1) week. Counsel must be registered to file

documents on-line. See L.R. 135(g). Counsel are responsible for

knowing the rules governing electronic filing in the Eastern

District. Please review the Court’s Local Rules effective January

3, 2005, and amended December 1, 2009, available on the Court’s web

site.

15. Effect of this Order:

The foregoing Order represents the best estimate of the

Court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable to bring this case

to resolution. If the parties determine at any time that the

schedule outlined in this Order cannot be met, counsel are ORDERED

to notify the Court immediately so that adjustments may be made,

either by stipulation or by subsequent status conference.

8

Case 1:09-cv-01900-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 02/05/10 Page 8 of 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

Stipulations extending the deadlines contained herein

will not be considered unless accompanied by affidavits or

declarations and, where appropriate, attached exhibits which

establish good cause for granting the relief requested.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER SHALL RESULT IN THE

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9

Case 1:09-cv-01900-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 02/05/10 Page 9 of 9