Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04234/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04234-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Right to Privacy 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

HERSH & HERSH,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-4234 PJH 

v. ORDER DENYING MOTION 

TO DISMISS IN PART AND 

GRANTING IT IN PART; 

GRANTING RELIEF FROM

PREMATURE DISCOVERY; AND 

REMANDING CASE

US DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

Three motions came on for hearing before this court on July 25, 2007: (1) the

Department of Health and Human Service’s (“HHS”) Motion to Dismiss; (2) HHS’s Motion

for Relief from Premature Discovery; and (3) intervenor Guidant Corporation’s (“Guidant”)

Motion to Remand to HHS. Plaintiff appeared through its counsel, Mark Burton. Guidant

appeared through its counsel James K. Vines, Simeon M. Schopf, and Darolyn Y. Hameda. 

HHS appeared through its counsel Sara Winslow. Having carefully reviewed the parties’

papers and considered the arguments of counsel and the relevant legal authority, and for

good cause appearing, the court hereby orders as follows for the reasons stated at the

hearing.

1. HHS’s Motion to Dismiss

The court hereby DENIES HHS’s Motion to Dismiss in part and GRANTS it in part. 

The motion is granted insofar as the court agrees with HHS that plaintiff must pay the costs

of providing the records that it seeks. The motion is denied insofar as the complaint will not

be dismissed as long as plaintiff immediately pays the assessed fees. Plaintiff has agreed

Case 4:06-cv-04234-PJH Document 90 Filed 07/26/07 Page 1 of 3
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

to pay the fees to HHS for processing its Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. §

552 request, and plaintiff shall do so immediately. Plaintiff may dispute any overpayment

after the court rules on the merits of this case. 

HHS’s FOIA office and the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) are components of

HHS, not independent regulatory agencies. HHS is the agency that produced certain

documents to plaintiff and withheld others based on asserted FOIA exemptions. This

withholding of documents is the only issue remaining in this case. All defendants other

than HHS are therefore DISMISSED. If HHS should prevail in this case, HHS may only

pursue costs on its own behalf, and not on behalf of the dismissed defendants.

2. HHS’s Motion for Relief from Premature Discovery and Guidant’s Motion to

Remand

HHS’s Motion for Relief from Premature Discovery and Guidant’s Motion to Remand

are GRANTED. Plaintiff’s appeal of HHS’s final decision is hereby REMANDED to HHS for

resolution. HHS shall adjudicate plaintiff’s appeal within 30 days. HHS shall review its

decision to withhold documents in both its interim and final decisions. Because of the

unusual posture of this case with both the appeal and the current litigation proceeding

simultaneously, this remand is not intended to relinquish this court’s jurisdiction over this

dispute, and in that sense it is a limited remand. By remanding the appeal, the court seeks

only to have the benefit of the agency’s decision-making prior to adjudication of the validity

of the asserted exemptions. 

Following HHS’s resolution of the appeal, the parties shall meet and confer

regarding all of the outstanding issues in the case. The parties shall then stipulate to a

briefing schedule for the cross motions for summary judgment. HHS shall provide a

Vaughn index along with its motion for summary judgment. The briefing schedule shall

allow plaintiff sufficient time to respond to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

Following receipt of defendants’ papers, plaintiff may file a narrowly tailored request for

discovery, if it determines that such discovery is necessary in order to oppose defendants’

motion. The court will not, however, permit “discovery” of the very documents that are

Case 4:06-cv-04234-PJH Document 90 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 3
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

sought in the FOIA request. Those documents will be ordered produced only after the

court has determined whether the claimed exemption(s) is valid. HHS and Guidant shall

file a joint motion unless leave of court is sought and obtained for filing separate motions. 

The court will hold a hearing on the parties’ summary judgment motions, but any discovery

motions submitted to the court will be decided on the papers. 

3. Other Pending Motions

On July 18, 2007, plaintiff filed a Motion for an Order Requiring a Complete

Response to Plaintiff’s Freedom of Information Request and a Vaughn Index, noticed for

hearing on August 22, 2007. As this court has ruled, plaintiff is not yet entitled to either

discovery or a decision on the merits. Thus, as the Vaughn index will be produced and the

documents are not obtainable through discovery, but only upon the court’s ruling favorably

on the FOIA request, that motion is DENIED as premature and unnecessary. Plaintiff also

filed a motion to compel noticed for hearing on August 29, 2007 before Magistrate Judge

Edward M. Chen. That motion which similarly seeks documents to which plaintiff is not yet

entitled to obtain is DENIED. Both the August 22, 2007 and August 29, 2007 hearing dates

are VACATED. No party shall file any motion other than a motion for summary judgment or

the limited discovery motion described above without leave of court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-04234-PJH Document 90 Filed 07/26/07 Page 3 of 3