Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00373/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00373-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID H. CALL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-00373 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On November 10, 2005, defendant Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) filed a motion for

summary judgment, currently scheduled for argument on December 19, 2005. Plaintiff has not filed an

opposition. The Court shall determine the motion without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b),

and hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion. 

BACKGROUND

This is an action forrelease ofdocuments under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C.

§ 552. On May 23, 2003, plaintiff David H. Call sent a FOIA request to defendant FAA. On October 9,

2003, plaintiff amended his request by narrowing it to request “[a]ll official FAA forms and documents

specifically served by the FAA upon officials of EWA[Emery World Airlines] pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.19

(including the notice of proposed certificate action), which directly resulted in EWA’s cessation of operations

on August 13, 2001.” Complaint ¶ 8, Ex. 1. On June 10, 2004, FAA identified 363 pages of documents

which it believed were responsive at the time. Complaint ¶ 11. The FAA released to plaintiff 179 “heavily

redacted” pages of documents, and withheld a totalof184 documents pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). Id.

On July 4, 2004, plaintifffiled an administrative appealregarding the withheld documents. On January
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

25, 2005, while the administrative appealwas still pending, plaintifffiled a complaint in this Court seeking relief

under the FOIA. On November 10, 2005, FAA filed a motion for summary judgment contending that it had

erroneously identified documents responsive to Call’s request, and that there are in fact no responsive

documents. Although plaintiff’s counsel were served with defendant’s motion, and received electronic copies

of the motion papers through the Court’s e-filing system, plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion.

 

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary adjudication is proper when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any materialfact and

that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

In a motion forsummary judgment, “[if] the moving party forsummary judgment meets itsinitialburden

ofidentifying forthe court those portions ofthe materials on file that it believes demonstrate the absence of any

genuine issues of material fact, the burden ofproduction then shiftsso that the non-moving party mustsetforth,

by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”

See T.W. Elec. Service, Inc., v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)). In judging evidence at the summary judgment stage, the

Court does not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, and draws all inferences in the

lightmost favorable to the non-moving party. SeeT.W.Electric, 809 F.2d at 630-31 (citing MatsushitaElec.

Indus. Co., Ltd. v. ZenithRadio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986)); Ting v.United States, 927 F.2d 1504, 1509

(9th Cir. 1991). The evidence presented by the parties must be admissible. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

Conclusory, speculative testimony in affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact

and defeatsummary judgment. See Thornhill Publ’g Co., Inc. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir.

1979). 

DISCUSSION

After a review ofdefendant’s motion and supporting declarations, and in light of plaintiff’s failure to file
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

an opposition, the Court concludes that there are no genuine issues as to any material facts and that defendant

is entitled to summary judgment. Defendant argues that it discharged its obligations under the FOIA because,

throughsimple humanerror, the FAA erroneously identified documents asresponsive to plaintiff’srequestwhen

in fact there were none. Defendant has submitted the declaration of Perry A. Kupietz, the FAA’s Regional

Counsel for the Great Lakes Region. Mr. Kupietz states that the FAA does not have any documents

responsive to Mr. Call’s October 9, 2003 FOIA request. See Kupietz Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. Defendant has also

submitted the declaration of Sheila A. Skojec, a senior attorney in the FAA’s Litigation Division of the Chief

Counsel. Ms. Skojec states although the FAA previously identified documents as within the scope of plaintiff’s

request, none of them actually were. See Skojec Decl., Vaughn Index. Based on these declarations, and in

light ofplaintiff’sfailure to respond at all, the Court concludesthatdefendant hassubmitted undisputed evidence

that it complied with its obligations under the FOIA. See Bowen v. U.S. Food and Drug Admin., 925 F.2d

1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 1995). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

[Docket No. 23].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge