Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02654/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02654-3/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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ex rel. EDMUND G. BROWN, ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AND TRAFFIC 

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION; and OFFICE OF

MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,

Defendants. ___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 06-2654 SC

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

IN PART AND ORDERING

IN CAMERA INSPECTION

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment by the

Plaintiff People of the State of California ex rel. Edmund G.

Brown, Attorney General of the State of California ("California" or

"Plaintiff")and Defendants National Highway and Traffic Safety

Administration ("NHTSA"), Department of Transportation ("DOT"), and

the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") (together

"Defendants"). See Docket Nos. 33, 41. 

Case 3:06-cv-02654-SC Document 53 Filed 05/08/07 Page 1 of 5
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

The Motions, and a subsequent release of a document by the

DOT/NHTSA have narrowed the number of documents in dispute. See

P's Reply (Docket No. 49) at 1; Docket Nos. 50, 51, 52. Currently,

Plaintiff seeks the following three documents which the OMB has

withheld based on the deliberative process exemption: Document

Nos. 8, 9, and 31. See P's Reply at 2. Plaintiff also seeks to

compel the OMB to produce, in an un-redacted form, the following

documents from which the OMB redacted non-responsive information: 

Document Nos. A, E, 2, 13, 14, 15, 23, 26, and 27. See id. at 6. 

For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion

as it relates to Document Nos. A, E, 2, 13, 14, 15, 23, 26, and 27. 

The Court RESERVES JUDGMENT on the Motions as they relate to 

Document Nos. 8, 9, and 31, and ORDERS Defendant to provide the

Court with those documents within 14 days for an in camera review.

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

 Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with

the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to

any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law." F.R.C.P. 56(c). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Documents Withheld on the Deliberative Process Exemption

The Court orders the Defendants to provide the Court with

copies of Documents No. 8, 9, and 31, which the OMB withheld based

on the deliberative process exemption, exemption 5 of the Freedom

Case 3:06-cv-02654-SC Document 53 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 5
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

"[I]nter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which

would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in

litigation with the agency." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5)

3

of Information Act "FOIA".1 

Defendants claim that these documents are a composite of fact

and deliberation, from which the facts cannot be segregated. See

Ds' Opp. at 4-5. Plaintiff responds that: 1) Defendants' have not

met their burden to show that the documents are covered by the

deliberative process exemption; and 2) assuming that some part of

the documents is covered by this exemption, the factual information

contained therein is segregable and the documents should, at the

very least, have been produced with only the deliberative sections

redacted. See P's Mot. at 11-13.

The Ninth Circuit has stated:

To qualify for exemption 5 under the "deliberative

process" privilege, a document must be both (1)

"predecisional" or "antecedent to the adoption of agency

policy" and (2) "deliberative," meaning "it must actually

be related to the process by which policies are

formulated."

Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 861 F.2d 1114, 1117 (9th

Cir. 1988). 

In a case such as this where the agency claims a document

contains both factual information and deliberation, the ultimate

question is "whether the document in question was part of the

deliberative process." Id. at 1118. Once it has concluded that the

document was part of the deliberative process, a court must

determine through "such a 'process-oriented' inquiry" whether

revelation of "even the factual information would reveal an

agency's decision-making progress." Id. at 1119 (internal

Case 3:06-cv-02654-SC Document 53 Filed 05/08/07 Page 3 of 5
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

quotations omitted). Such can be the case "[w]here either the

disclosure of the manner of selecting or presenting facts would

expose the deliberative process, or where facts are inextricably

intertwined with policy-making processes." Id. (internal

quotations omitted).

"[W]here the government sustains its burden by way of

testimony of affidavits," a court should make its determination

whether a claimed exemption applies on the basis of such

submissions. Lion Raisins v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 354 F.3d

1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2004). However, when such submissions are

inadequate, "[d]istrict courts have discretion to order in camera

inspection of the actual documents the government wishes to

withhold." Id.

The affidavits which Defendants submitted are not adequate. 

See Kim Decl., Ex. A at 16, 25; Morrall Decl., ¶ 18. The Morrall

Declaration states generally that revelation of the factual

information would reveal the decision-making process because it

would show which facts the author determined were important. See

id. However, none of the affidavits explain why this is the case. 

This is not sufficient. It is the Court that must determine

whether "the disclosure of the manner of selecting or presenting

facts would expose the deliberative process," Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n,

861 F.2d at 1119, not Defendants. 

B. Documents with Non-Responsive Information Redacted

Defendants' redaction of non-responsive information was

proper. An agency has no obligation to produce information that is

not responsive to a FOIA request. See generally U.S. v. Catholic

Case 3:06-cv-02654-SC Document 53 Filed 05/08/07 Page 4 of 5
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

Healthcare West,445 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, there

are no grounds for ordering the OMB to produce Document Nos. A, E,

2, 13, 14, 15, 23, 26, and 27 in an un-redacted form.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion

for Summary Judgment as it relates to Document Nos. A, E, 2, 13,

14, 15, 23, 26, and 27. The Court RESERVES JUDGMENT on the Motions

as they relate to Document Nos. 8, 9, and 31, and ORDERS Defendant

to provide the Court with those documents within 14 days for an in

camera review. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2007

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02654-SC Document 53 Filed 05/08/07 Page 5 of 5