Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02736/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02736-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:0552fi Freedom of Information Act

---

1

18cv2736-MDD-KSC

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS M. BUCKOVETZ,

Plaintiff, 

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF THE NAVY,

Defendant. 

Case No.: 18cv2736-MDD-KSC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

[ECF No. 22]

On December 5, 2018, Plaintiff Dennis M. Buckovetz (“Plaintiff”), 

proceeding pro se, commenced the instant action against Defendant United 

States Department of the Navy (“Defendant”) alleging Defendant violated the 

Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). (ECF No. 1). 

On December 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave to file a First 

Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 22). On December 27, 2019, Defendant filed 

a response in opposition (ECF No. 25), to which Plaintiff replied (ECF No. 

28). For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion 

for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amendment of pleadings. It 

Case 3:18-cv-02736-MDD-KSC Document 29 Filed 01/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

18cv2736-MDD-KSC

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

states that if a responsive pleading has already been filed, the party seeking 

amendment “may amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court or by 

written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when 

justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). This rule reflects an underlying 

policy that disputes should be determined on their merits, and not on the 

technicalities of pleading rules. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181-82 

(1962). Accordingly, the Court must be generous in granting leave to amend. 

See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 

1990) (noting leave to amend should be granted with “extreme liberality”); 

Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989).

However, courts may deny leave to amend for several reasons, including 

the presence of bad faith on the part of the plaintiff, undue delay, prejudice to 

the defendant, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has 

previously filed an amended complaint. See Ascon Props., 866 F.2d at 1160; 

McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 809 (9th Cir. 1988). The test of 

futility “is identical to the one used when considering the sufficiency of a 

pleading challenged under Rule 12(b)(6).” Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 

F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988).

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks to amend the “requested relief” portion of his complaint 

to “address the adequacy of [Defendant’s] search.” (ECF No. 22 at 3). 

Specifically, he seeks to remove his request to order Defendant “to certify . . . 

that the disclosed email records include all emails that satisfy the search 

criteria presented in [his] FOIA” and seeks to add his request to order 

Defendant to “recover or reconstitute any responsive email records that were 

deleted from the usmc.mil email accounts identified in [his] 2015 and 2018 

Requests,” to award “attorney fees,” and to “issue a written finding if the 

Case 3:18-cv-02736-MDD-KSC Document 29 Filed 01/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

18cv2736-MDD-KSC

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

circumstances surrounding the withholding of responsive records raise 

questions about whether agency personnel acted arbitrarily or capriciously.” 

(ECF No. 22-2 at 5). Defendant opposes, contending the amended requests 

for relief are not permissible in this FOIA action, and therefore, amendment 

would be futile. (ECF No. 25 at 1).

A. Futility

First, Plaintiff requests Defendant “recover or reconstitute any 

responsive email records that were deleted.” (ECF No. 22-2 at 5). Defendant 

avers that it has no duty under the FOIA to recover deleted documents. 

(ECF No. 25 at 2-3). In support, Defendant cites a Sixth Circuit case, which 

found that requiring a “technology expert [to] scan relevant computers and 

servers for additional information that might have been deleted” is 

“manifestly not what the [FOIA] intends.” (Id. (citing CareToLive v. FDA, 

631 F.3d 336, 344 (6th Cir. 2011)). In CareToLive, the Sixth Circuit was 

addressing the adequacy of the government’s search and noted that while 

“some of our sister circuits have required that agencies attempt to recover 

electronic files to respond to certain requests . . . the facts of this case do not 

require such a search.” CareToLive, 631 F.3d at 343. The Eighth Circuit has 

explained that “[t]he fact that a document once existed does not mean that it 

now exists; nor does the fact that an agency created a document necessarily 

imply that the agency has retained it.” Miller v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 779 F.2d 

1378, 1384 (8th Cir. 1985). The government is not required by the FOIA to 

account for deleted documents, said the Eighth Circuit, “if it has made a 

diligent search for those documents in the places in which they might be 

expected to be found.” Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff may recover deleted emails 

if the Court finds Defendant’s initial search was inadequate. See CareToLive, 

631 F.3d at 343; Miller, 779 F.2d at 1384. Therefore, his amendment 

Case 3:18-cv-02736-MDD-KSC Document 29 Filed 01/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

18cv2736-MDD-KSC

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

regarding deleted emails is not necessarily futile. 

Second, Plaintiff seeks “attorney’s fees.” (ECF No. 22-2 at 5). 

Defendant opposes this amendment because “a pro se litigant may not 

recover attorney’s fees under the FOIA.” Carter v. Veterans Admin., 780 F.2d 

1479, 1481 (9th Cir. 1986). In reply, Plaintiff contends “[t]his amendment is 

sought in the event that [he] engage[s] an attorney to counsel and/or 

represent [him] in this action.” (ECF No. 28 at 3). Amendment is not futile if 

Plaintiff were to retain counsel. The Court advises Plaintiff that in order to 

receive attorney’s fees he must actually hire an attorney to represent him in 

the action1 and not merely counsel him. See Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432, 437 

(1991) (explaining that a rule authorizing an award “of counsel fees to pro se 

litigants . . . would create a disincentive to employ counsel whenever such a 

plaintiff considered himself competent to litigate on his own behalf”). 

Third, Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to request a “written 

finding” if the Court finds “agency personnel acted arbitrarily or 

capriciously.” (ECF No. 22-2 at 5). Defendant contends whether the 

government acted arbitrarily and capriciously is irrelevant to FOIA actions. 

(See ECF No. 25 at 3). However, section 552(a)(4)(F) provides that 

“[w]henever the court orders the production of any agency records improperly 

withheld from the complainant and assesses against the United States 

reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs, and the court additionally

issues a written finding that the circumstances surrounding the withholding 

raise questions whether agency personnel acted arbitrarily or capriciously,”

 

1 In other words, Plaintiff’s attorney would need to file a notice of appearance. Further, 

Plaintiff would only recover attorney’s fees for work completed after the filing of the notice 

of appearance.

Case 3:18-cv-02736-MDD-KSC Document 29 Filed 01/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

18cv2736-MDD-KSC

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

Special Counsel must determine whether further disciplinary action is 

necessary. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(F)(i). Amendment, therefore, is not 

necessarily futile because the Court may ultimately “order the production of 

any agency records” in connection with the dispute and “assess against the 

United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs.” Id. 

Pursuant to the FOIA, the Court could then issue “a written finding that the 

circumstances withholding raise questions [about] whether agency personnel 

acted arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to the withholding.” Id.

B. Remaining Foman Factors

Having found that Plaintiff’s amendment is not futile, the Court 

proceeds to the remaining Foman factors. First, there is no evidence that the 

proposed amendment will prejudice Defendant. Second, while Plaintiff 

purportedly seeks leave to amend his complaint to address claims raised in 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss and answer, which were filed in June and 

August of 2019, the Court does not find Plaintiff unduly delayed in filing the 

instant motion. (ECF No. 22 at 2; see also ECF Nos. 9, 14). Following 

Defendant’s answer, the parties consented to United States Magistrate Judge 

Mitchell D. Dembin’s jurisdiction for all proceedings in this case, including 

trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings on October 

28, 2019. (ECF No. 16). The Court held a telephonic case management 

conference on November 18, 2019 and set a briefing schedule later that day. 

(ECF Nos. 17, 19, 20). Given the procedural posture of the case, it does not 

appear that Plaintiff delayed in filing the instant motion. Further, Plaintiff 

has not previously amended his complaint. (See Docket).

III. CONCLUSION

Upon thorough review of the relevant documents, and after examining 

the relevant factors, the Court finds that permitting Plaintiff leave to amend 

Case 3:18-cv-02736-MDD-KSC Document 29 Filed 01/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

18cv2736-MDD-KSC

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

his complaint is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 

motion for leave to file an a First Amended Complaint. The Clerk of Court is 

instructed to file Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 22-1) as a 

separate docket entry.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-02736-MDD-KSC Document 29 Filed 01/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6