Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05935/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05935-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
LegalForce RAPC Worldwide P.C.
Plaintiff
United States Patent & Trademark Office
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEGALFORCE RAPC WORLDWIDE 

P.C.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES PATENT & 

TRADEMARK OFFICE,

Defendant.

No. C 19-05935 WHA 

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

In this Freedom of Information Act case, defendant agency moves for summary judgment. 

The Vaughn index does not adequately justify certain applications of Exemption 5, but plaintiff 

does not challenge the adequacy of the agency’s search or its application of Exemptions 6 and 

7. No genuine dispute of the agency’s withholding remaining, summary judgment is GRANTED. 

STATEMENT

In May 2019, plaintiff LegalForce RAPC Worldwide P.C. filed FOIA request F-19-00197 

with defendant United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) seeking records from an

investigation into one of plaintiff’s attorneys, Heather Sapp. In 2018, the PTO’s Office of 

Enrollment and Discipline (OED) (which oversees practitioner (mis)conduct) investigated Ms.

Sapp, also a former PTO attorney, for possible violations of the PTO’s document signing and 

submission rules. The investigation, No. G3493, concluded with a settlement and public 

Case 3:19-cv-05935-WHA Document 32 Filed 04/16/20 Page 1 of 10
2

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

reprimand, approved in the final order of In the Matter of Heather A. Sapp, Proceeding No. 

D2019-31 (Choe Decl., Dkt. No. 23-1, at ¶¶ 5, 15–17). 

Following the settlement, plaintiff requested four categories of documents, which the PTO 

interpreted as follows:

Plaintiff’s Actual Request PTO Interpretation

1. Any and all Request[s] for Information 

(RFI’s) sent by the USPTO Office of 

Enrollment and Discipline to Heather A. 

Sapp or her counsel . . . .

1. [A]ll RFI’s that OED transmitted to 

Heather A. Sapp in connection with her 

disciplinary proceeding.

2. Any and all responses submitted by 

Heather A. Sapp either directly or through 

counsel . . . .

2. [A]ny response submitted by Heather A. 

Sapp or her counsel on any subject related to 

the investigation . . . .

3. Any and all notes from interviews 

conducted in person with Heather A. Sapp 

and/or her attorney that are not governed 

under any settlement privilege . . . .

3. [A]ny documents related to the Agency’s 

preparation for the interview and any notes 

or memoranda generated post-interview.

4. Any and all declarations, affidavits, or 

statements of facts received or taken by OED 

from Heather A. Sapp . . . leading to the 

Final Order . . . .

4. [D]raft and final versions of the Proposed 

Settlement Agreement and Final Order, and 

any substantive communications discussing 

the contents of those documents.

In response, the PTO’s FOIA Office turned to the OED, who identified six employees likely to

have relevant documents. In June 2019, the PTO released 31 pages of documents to plaintiff

(Choe Decl. at ¶¶ 5, 8, 18–19, 21–24). 

Dissatisfied, plaintiff filed this suit and suggested that “there were disagreements in the 

USPTO about whether to release records.” So, in January 2020, the PTO searched again in 

three places. In the Office of the Solicitor, which advises OED, the PTO identified as relevant 

and searched the files of former Associate Solicitor Elizabeth Mendel, employing relevant 

search terms, including “Heather,” “Sapp,” “G3493,” and “D2019-31.” It then searched the 

Office of General Law, which approved Ms. Sapp’s settlement, for documents regarding that

settlement, using relevant search terms such as her name and proceeding number. Finally, it 

searched the files of the OED’s director, William Covey, again for Ms. Sapp’s name and file 

numbers. The PTO also searched Mr. Covey’s files for plaintiff’s counsel’s name, Mr. 

Abhyanker (id. at ¶¶ 25–28). 

Case 3:19-cv-05935-WHA Document 32 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 10
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The PTO’s initial search recovered 3,109 pages of which 31 were released in full and 

3,078 were withheld in full. The supplemental search revealed 170 new pages, of which 83 

pages were released in full, 12 in part, and 75 withheld in full. Additionally, the PTO 

reconsidered some of the initially withheld 3,078 pages, releasing 143 pages in full and 575 

pages in part. Simply, the original search yielded 3,109 relevant pages of the 3,279 relevant 

pages eventually found (id. at ¶ 29; Choe Suppl. Decl., Dkt. No. 25-1, at ¶¶ 3–4; Choe Sec. 

Suppl. Decl., Dkt. No. 29, at ¶¶ 3–6). The table below summarizes the productions:

June 2019 January 2020 Final Vaughn Index

Released in any form 31 813 844

Released in Full 31 226 257

Released in Part 0 587 587

Withheld in Full 3,078 2,435 2,435

Withheld in any form 2935 3022 3,022

Totals 3,109 3,248 3,279

In sum, the PTO withheld in some part 3,022 pages of documents under FOIA 

Exemptions 5, 6, and 7. Its Vaughn index, filed on February 27 along with a motion for 

summary judgment, asserts the exemptions over 469 documents. The index notes authors and 

addressees of each document, the title and subject, the specific statutory exemption, and one or 

several of six categories for withholding under the specified exemptions. The index also 

includes a key for the categories of withholding and a list of relevant staff and attorneys in 

OED, the Office of General Law, and the Office of the Solicitor (Dkt. No. 23-2 at 115–200; 

Dkt. No. 25 fn. 1). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this order follows full briefing and a 

telephonic hearing. It also follows in camera review of four specifically challenged documents. 

ANALYSIS

FOIA lets us see what our government is up to by “provid[ing] public access to official 

information ‘shielded unnecessarily’ from public view and establish[ing] a ‘judicially 

enforceable public right to secure such information from possibly unwilling official 

hands.’” Lahr v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964, 973 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Dep’t of 

Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976)). It “mandates a policy of broad disclosure of 

government documents.” Church of Scientology of California v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 611 F.2d 

Case 3:19-cv-05935-WHA Document 32 Filed 04/16/20 Page 3 of 10
4

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

738, 741 (9th Cir. 1979), overruled on other grounds by Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Food 

& Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2016). Here, plaintiff complains only that: (1) the PTO

provided an insufficient Vaughn index; (2) it improperly withheld several documents under 

Exemption 5; and (3) two non-attorneys referenced in the index undermine the claimed 

Exemptions. Notably, plaintiff does not challenge the adequacy of the PTO’s search, nor does 

it challenge the PTO’s application of Exemptions 6 and 7. 

1. ADEQUACY OF THE VAUGHN INDEX.

Plaintiff rates the PTO’s Vaughn index as inadequate for two reasons. The first 

misunderstands the record and the second fails to convince. 

First, plaintiff contends the Vaughn index does not include, and thus cannot justify, the 

withholding of documents from the PTO’s initial production (Dkt. No. 24 at 3–5). This is 

factually incorrect, though plaintiff’s misunderstanding may be excused due to the PTO’s 

piecemeal explanation. The PTO’s initial search returned 3,109 relevant pages, 31 which were 

produced in full and 3,078 which were withheld in full. The supplemental search revealed 170

new pages of material. Ultimately, the two PTO searches revealed 3,279 relevant pages, 257 

which were released in full, 587 in part, and 2,435 withheld in full. Thus, the complete Vaughn 

index reports the bases for withholding 3,022 pages (Choe Decl. at ¶ 29; Choe Supp. Decl. at ¶¶ 

3–4; Choe Sec. Suppl. Decl. at ¶¶ 3–6). 

Second, plaintiff appears to challenge as insufficient the index’s categories of bases for 

exemption (Dkt. No. 24 at 5–6). A Vaughn index must “identify[] each document withheld, the 

statutory exemption claimed, and [provide a] particularized explanation of how disclosure of the 

particular document would damage the interest protected by the claimed exemption.” The 

index should “afford the FOIA requester a meaningful opportunity to contest, and the district 

court an adequate foundation to review, the soundness of the withholding.” Simply, the index 

should level the FOIA playing field for the requester and “permit more effective judicial review 

of the agency’s decision.” Wiener v. F.B.I., 943 F.2d 972, 977–78 (9th Cir. 1991). 

This order finds the Vaughn index generally sufficient for the review sought. As seen 

below, the index offers enough information to effectively evaluate plaintiff’s objections — with 

Case 3:19-cv-05935-WHA Document 32 Filed 04/16/20 Page 4 of 10
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

one exception. But the exception aside, plaintiff does not explain how the index’s employment 

of various categories of withholding undermines review. Each individual document entry in the 

Vaughn index describes the document type, source or author, addressee or destination, title, 

subject, date, and whether withheld in full or redacted in part. Plaintiff’s “generic categories” 

of withholding are conclusions, applicable to groups of documents, based upon individual 

descriptions. The people drafting and reading, and the contents and purpose of, the document 

constitutes the key information this order uses to evaluate whether the document was 

appropriately withheld. 

Plaintiff’s only specific challenge is that documents should not be jointly classified under 

withholding categories A and B (Dkt. No. 24 at 6). But the categories are not mutually 

exclusive. Category A applies to predecisional and deliberative drafts and documents, where 

category B applies to predecisional and deliberative documents — not drafts. Both address 

predecisional and deliberative documents, but category B is narrower because it does not 

include communications, such as final memoranda and emails, which are not drafts. Plaintiff

may be excused for misunderstanding, as the PTO itself injected the ambiguity by defining the 

term “document” to include “emails [and] letters” in both categories before clarifying the 

distinction upon reply (Dkt. No. 23-2 at 197; Choe Supp. Decl. at ¶ 20). But a Vaughn index 

need not be elegant, it need only aid effective review. Plaintiff does not explain how these two 

categories undermine effective review of the PTO’s application of the exemptions. Thus, this 

order proceeds to evaluate plaintiff’s specific challenges to the PTO’s withholding. 

2. WORK-PRODUCT CHALLENGES.

Plaintiff challenges the PTO’s bases for withholding four documents as protected attorney 

work-product under Exemption 5. “When a request is made, an agency may withhold a 

document, or portions thereof, only if the material at issue falls within one of the nine statutory 

exemptions found in § 552(b).” “These exemptions are explicitly exclusive and must be 

narrowly construed in light of FOIA’s dominant objective of disclosure, not 

secrecy.” Maricopa Audubon Soc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 1997)

(citations and quotations omitted). “FOIA’s strong presumption in favor of disclosure places 

Case 3:19-cv-05935-WHA Document 32 Filed 04/16/20 Page 5 of 10
6

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

the burden on the government to show that an exemption properly applies to the records it seeks 

to withhold.” Hamdan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 797 F.3d 759, 772 (9th Cir. 2015).

Exemption 5 protects from disclosure “interagency 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.” Information may be withheld if (1) its source is a government agency, and (2) it 

“fall[s] within the ambit of a privilege against discovery under judicial standards that would 

govern litigation against the agency that holds it.” Dep’t of Interior v. Klamath Water Users 

Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 8 (2001). “This exemption has been interpreted as coextensive 

with all civil discovery privileges.” Sierra Club v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 925 F.3d 

1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2019). “These include records that would be protected in litigation by the 

attorney work-product, attorney-client, and deliberative process privileges.” ACLU Nor. Cal. v. 

United States Dep’t of Just., 880 F.3d 473, 483 (9th Cir. 2018). But to be clear, “Exemption 5 

shields those documents, and only those documents, normally privileged in the civil discovery 

context.” Lahr, 569 F.3d at 979 (quotation omitted). 

“The attorney work-product privilege protects from discovery in litigation mental 

impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party’s attorney that were prepared in 

anticipation of litigation or for trial.” Simply, it permits “attorneys to prepare their thoughts and 

impressions about a case freely and without reservation.” To qualify for protection, “documents 

must: (1) be prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial and (2) be prepared by or for 

another party or by or for that other party’s representative.” ACLU Nor. Cal., 880 F.3d at 483–

84 (quotations omitted). As above, plaintiff challenges four work-product designations.

First, plaintiff objects to the designation of documents 415, 420, and 461, described as 

draft interview outlines and notes attached to emails, but without specified authors (Dkt. No. 24 

at 6). Plaintiff’s objection to document 415 appears a typographical error, as document 415 is 

an email chain between Ms. Franz, other OED attorneys Howard Reitz, Ronald Jaicks, 

Elizabeth Dorsey, and OED paralegal Hannah Robinson discussing Ms. Sapp’s interview. 

Plaintiff’s parallel reference to Bates numbers 2611–2620 confirm the actual target of the 

Case 3:19-cv-05935-WHA Document 32 Filed 04/16/20 Page 6 of 10
7

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

objection is document 418 which, like documents 420 and 461, is an email attachment without 

an author specified (Dkt. No. 23-2 at 186–87). 

This objection, though, is unfounded. Email attachments in the index correspond to the 

email immediately preceding (Choe Supp. Decl. at ¶¶ 10–11, 13). So, the supposedly 

unauthored documents 418, 420, and 461, each described as “[d]raft outline and notes used for 

interview with Heather Sapp” are attachments to email documents 417, 419, and 460. OED 

attorney Jaicks authored and sent documents 417 and 419 to OED attorneys Franz and Reitz. 

And attorney Jaicks also authored and sent document 460 to Office of the Solicitor attorneys 

Elizabeth Mendel and Melinda DeAtley. Thus, OED attorneys authored the interview outlines

to further their investigation of Ms. Sapp and circulated them for internal OED attorney review, 

or for advice and review by the Office of the Solicitor (id. at 186–87, 195, 200; Dkt. No. 23-1 at 

¶ 36). Plaintiff’s objection does not undermine the conclusion that the PTO correctly identified 

these documents as, at least, attorney work-product. 

Nonetheless, the undersigned took the documents for in camera review, confirming the 

above. Documents 418, 420, and 461 are iterations of an outline for the OED’s interview of 

Ms. Sapp, part of the agency’s disciplinary investigation. They lay out the interview format, 

subject matter, and even the specific language of questions to ask. They are, undoubtedly, 

attorney work-product. And because the documents are agency (the PTO’s) work-product, they 

fall within Exemption 5. See Klamath, 532 U.S. at 8.

Second, plaintiff challenges the designation of document 397, contending its thirty pages 

of emails, memos, and communication were withheld “without any indication of who the 

authors [were]” (Dkt. No. 24 at 6). But, as above, the description “Attachment: Exhibits” 

means document 397 is the batch of exhibits attached to document 396, “Memorandum with 

attachment” (Choe Supp. Decl. at ¶ 7). OED staff attorney Sarah Franz authored the 

memorandum (document 396) to memorialize the PTO’s interview of Ms. Sapp for the file —

paradigm work-product. And, the PTO concludes, because the exhibits to the memo reflect Ms. 

Franz’s impressions and evaluation of the interview, their attachment constitutes work-product 

(Dkt. No. 23-2 at 183, 200). 

Case 3:19-cv-05935-WHA Document 32 Filed 04/16/20 Page 7 of 10
8

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

But a document, otherwise discoverable, does not become undiscoverable merely because 

an attorney has reviewed it. See Our Children’s Earth Found. v. Nat’l Mar. Fish. Serv., 85 F. 

Supp. 3d 1074, 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (citing O’Connor v. Boeing N. Am., 185 F.R.D. 272, 280 

(C.D. Cal. 1999)). Here, the Vaughn index’s failure to describe the underlying exhibits 

themselves prevents effective review of the PTO’s withholding. From the index alone, it 

remains unclear whether the underlying exhibits are complete documents or whether they are

annotated or excerpted, thus representing attorney impressions. Nor does the index adequately 

describe the document subjects. And, because Exemption 5 applies, generally, only to intraagency or interagency documents, failure to specify document authors and addressees may 

undermine the withholding. 

Unsurprisingly, in camera review reveals Exemption 5 does not protect document 397. 

Recall, the exemption covers agency generated documents — it doesn’t cover non-agency 

authored documents. See Klamath, 532 U.S. at 8. Document 397 contains no agency generated 

material. Instead, it contains email threads between Ms. Sapp and Mr. Abhyanker — plaintiff’s 

own email records — and a memorandum from outside ethics counsel. 

It is true that an attorney’s curation of exhibits, i.e., annotations and excerpts of 

documents, might be work-product. See ACLU Nor. Cal., 880 F.3d at 483–84. For example, 

the memorandum from outside ethics counsel does just that — it includes snippets of Ms. 

Sapp’s instant message communications nested within counsel’s analysis. It does not appear 

that the PTO’s attorneys similarly curated the pages of document 397, which instead seems to 

include entire emails or email chains and the entire ethics memorandum. There may be work 

product in document 397, but it’s not the PTO’s, so Exemption 5 doesn’t apply. 

But the PTO also asserts Ms. Sapp holds a legitimate privacy interest in the circumstances 

of the OED’s investigation into her conduct. Thus, it rates disclosure of document 397 both as a 

clearly unwarranted invasion of Ms. Sapp’s personal privacy generally and an unwarranted 

invasion of her personal privacy interest in law enforcement documents involving her (Dkt. No. 

23 at 20–25). Despite the fair opportunity to challenge these grounds in its opposition brief, 

plaintiff did not (Dkt. No. 24). No public interest articulated to overcome Ms. Sapp’s privacy 

Case 3:19-cv-05935-WHA Document 32 Filed 04/16/20 Page 8 of 10
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

interest, document 397 was appropriately withheld under Exemptions 6 and 7(C). See Lahr, 

569 F.3d at 973–74. 

3. NON-ATTORNEYS REFERENCED IN VAUGHN INDEX.

Plaintiff finally objects to two individuals referenced in the Vaughn index who it contends 

are not attorneys. Both represent misunderstandings that do not undermine the PTO’s 

application of exemptions.

First, plaintiff contends that Robert Walker, “Administrative Management Special,” is 

identified in the index’s list of attorneys and staff, but he is nowhere identified along with a 

withheld document. Thus, “without clarifying what documents he authored it is impossible to 

determine” whether the claimed exemptions apply (Dkt. No. 24 at 6). Plaintiff does not, 

however, identify any documents in the Vaughn index to which this concern might apply. 

Regardless, the PTO explains there are none. Mr. Walker is referenced as Office of General 

Law staff, but all documents containing his name were in-fact released in full to plaintiff (Choe 

Suppl. Decl. at ¶ 21). So, this misunderstanding does not undermine any withholdings. 

Second, plaintiff notes that documents 165, 172, 203, and 347 reference “Timothy 

Rooney,” an individual unidentified in the original Vaughn index list of staff and attorneys. The 

PTO withheld each document under Exemption 5 (Dkt. No. 24 at 6–7). But as plaintiff rightly 

notes, Exemption 5 generally protects only “interagency or intra-agency” documents — the 

presence of an outsider could undermine application of the exemption. See 5 U.S.C. 

§ 552(b)(5). The PTO clarified in reply, however, that Mr. Rooney is an OED attorney 

“inadvertently omitted from the List of USPTO Attorneys and Staff” in the Vaughn index (Choe 

Suppl. Decl. at ¶ 22). So, his involvement in four iterations of drafting Ms. Sapp’s settlement 

agreement does not undermine the PTO’s withholding under Exemption 5. 

CONCLUSION

No genuine disputes remain. The PTO’s search was adequate. Most documents were 

properly withheld under Exemption 5. One document was not, but plaintiff does not challenge 

the withholding under Exemptions 6 and 7. Because plaintiff’s remaining objections to the 

Case 3:19-cv-05935-WHA Document 32 Filed 04/16/20 Page 9 of 10
10

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

PTO’s withholding are soundly addressed, summary judgment is appropriate. Thus, the PTO’s 

motion is GRANTED. 

It bears stating, however, that though the several misunderstandings noted above did not 

undermine the PTO’s application of exemptions, they illustrate the necessity of comprehensive 

and accurate Vaughn indices. Government agencies enjoy an unusually powerful position in 

FOIA cases, where the facts, the documents, and the reasons for withholding begin (and often 

stay) completely within the agency’s control. “This lack of knowledge by the party seeking 

disclosure seriously distorts the traditional adversary nature of our legal system[].” See Wiener, 

943 F.2d at 977 (citing Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 824 (D.C. Cir. 1973)). Recall, among 

other things, FOIA affords private citizens the ability to hold the government to its own rules. 

See Oregon Nat’l Desert Ass’n v. Locke, 572 F.3d 610, 614 (9th Cir. 2009). Errors, inadvertent 

to the government, are often more serious for a plaintiff. Next time, the PTO and counsel 

would do well to review submissions once more. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2020.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-05935-WHA Document 32 Filed 04/16/20 Page 10 of 10