Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00454/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00454-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rose Ann Karam
Plaintiff
United States Department of Health and Human Services
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rose Ann Karam,

Plaintiff,

v. 

United States Department of Health and 

Human Services,

Defendant.

No. CV-18-00454-TUC-JGZ (DTF)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Defendant United States Department of Health and Human 

Service’s (Defendant) Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion). (Doc. 39.) As more fully 

explained below, this Court determines that there is no genuine dispute as to any material 

fact. Accordingly, this Court recommends that the district court, after its independent 

review of the record, grant Defendant’s Motion.

Background

Plaintiff, pro se, sued Defendant under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 

U.S.C. § 552, seeking disclosure of certain records. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant 

failed to process her FOIA request and has wrongfully withheld records that she requested. 

Id. at p. 6. Plaintiff asks the district court to issue an order directing Defendant to provide 

her with all the records she requested. Id. at p. 7.

Facts

On February 28, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request (the “Request”) to the 

Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts (FOI/PA) Division of the U.S. Department of 

Case 4:18-cv-00454-JGZ-DTF Document 41 Filed 10/07/19 Page 1 of 8
- 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

Health and Human Services seeking:

[A]ny information available regarding investigations conducted by the 

following Office of Civil Rights regarding the following cases: Case #17-

265131 Karam, Rose against Arizona Community Surgeons (Dr. Edward 

Berghausen, MD); Case #17-280536 Karam, Rose against Arizona 

Community Surgeons (Dr. Edward Berghausen, MD); Case #17-281452 

Karam, Rose against Arizona Community Surgeons (Dr. Edward 

Berghausen, MD); Case #17-275732 Karam, Rose against El Rio Birth and 

Women’s Center (Dr. Carolyn Quigley, MD); Case #18-289881 Karam, 

Rose against NextCare Urgent Care (Dr. Richard Fleming); and Case #18-

296575 Karam, Rose against NextCare Urgent Care (Dr. Richard Fleming); 

Case #18-293319 Karam, Rose against Abundant Health Family Practice 

(Dr. Cynthia Elliott, DNP, FNPC). 

See Doc. 40 at ¶ 1. 

On March 1, 2018, the FOI/PA Division transmitted an acknowledgement letter to 

Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 2. Also, on this date, the FOI/PA Division requested that the Health and 

Human Services Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) conduct a search for records responsive 

to the Request. Id. at ¶ 3. The Request was assigned to Lionel Nious, a Management 

Analyst, through OCR’s Program Information Management System (“PIMS”). PIMS is 

OCR’s system of records which holds all documents related to complaints that OCR 

receives, investigates and to which it responds. Id. A search was conducted in PIMS using 

the case transaction numbers provided in the Request. Id. Upon completion of the search, 

263 pages of responsive records were found along with seven audio files. Id. 

On November 8, 2018, the OCR provided 263 pages for responsive records to the 

FOI/PA Division in response to the Request. Id. at ¶ 4. 

On November 14, 2018, the 263 pages of responsive records were transferred from 

the intake team to the processing team within the FOI/PA Division for review and a 

determination regarding disclosure. Id. at ¶ 5. 

On February 26, 2019, Defendant issued a disclosure determination to Plaintiff. Id. 

at ¶ 6. The disclosure determination was as follows: 213 pages were released in full, 12 

pages were withheld in full pursuant to FOIA exemption 5, 7 pages were released with 

redactions under exemption 5, 4 pages were released with redactions under exemptions 5, 

Case 4:18-cv-00454-JGZ-DTF Document 41 Filed 10/07/19 Page 2 of 8
- 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

6, and 7(C), and 27 pages were released with redactions under exemptions 6 and 7(C). Id. 

at ¶ 7. 

On July 25, 2019, in an effort to satisfy Plaintiff’s concerns about the redactions, 

HHS re-disclosed the records and provided the specific FOIA exemption (for those 

documents that it determined were subject to a FOIA exemption) and also provided a brief 

description of the redacted information. Id. at ¶ 17. 

On August 26, 2018, Defendant filed its Motion. (Doc. 39.) Plaintiff did not oppose 

the Motion. See Dkt. 

Summary Judgment Standard

The Court may grant a motion for summary judgment only if the evidence shows 

that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). Because FOIA cases involve the 

propriety of responses to document requests, “[a]s a general rule, all FOIA determinations 

should be resolved on summary judgment.” Lawyers’ Comm. For Civil Rights of S.F. Bay 

Area v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 534 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2008); see also Lane 

v. Dept. of Interior, 523 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 2008). The government is entitled to 

summary judgment if it establishes by reasonably detailed, non-conclusory declarations 

submitted in good faith that it has performed a reasonable search and, if it has withheld 

information, that there is a logical connection between that information and an exemption. 

Lane, 523 F.3d at 1131. Such declarations “are accorded ‘a presumption of good faith, 

which cannot be rebutted by purely speculative claims about the existence of 

discoverability of other documents.’” Lawyers’ Comm., 534 F. Supp. 2d at 1131 (quoting 

SafeCard Servcs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1991)). “If the affidavits 

contain reasonably detailed descriptions of the documents and allege facts sufficient to 

establish an exemption, ‘the district court need look no further.’” Lane, 523 F.3d at 1135-

36. (citations omitted).

An agency is not required to search every field office or record system, or to 

speculate about potential leads. Marks v. Dep’t of Justice, 578 F.2d 261, 263 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Case 4:18-cv-00454-JGZ-DTF Document 41 Filed 10/07/19 Page 3 of 8
- 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

See also, Campbell v. Dep’t of Justice, 164 F.3d 20, 28 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (“FOIA demands 

only a reasonable search tailored to the nature of a particular request.”) If a search is 

challenged, the issue is not whether responsive records might possibly exist or whether 

records were actually uncovered but whether the search was reasonably calculated to 

discover the requested records. See Citizens Comm’n on Human Rights v. FDA, 45 F.3d 

1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1995). Summary judgment is appropriate if the agency submits a 

reasonably detailed affidavit averring that the files are likely to contain responsive 

materials, if any exist, were searched. Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321, 

326 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 

Plaintiff’s Failure to Respond to the Motion

Where the non-movant fails to respond to the movant’s motion for summary 

judgment, the court is not required to grant the motion. This is the case even in light of 

Rule 7.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. See Joe Hand Promotions Inc., 2016 WL 

3269723, at *3 (D. Ariz. June 15, 2016) (citing Finkle v. Ryan, 2016 WL 1241878, at *3 

(D. Ariz. 2016) (plaintiff’s failure to respond to defendant’s motion for summary judgment 

did not warrant granting the motion despite Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i)). “The 

Ninth Circuit has clarified that such local rules cannot provide a valid basis for granting a 

motion for summary judgment where the motion is unopposed, as Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 56 ‘authorizes the court to consider a fact as disputed,’ but does not allow the 

court to grant summary judgment by default.” Id. (quoting Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 

F.3d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 2013) (determining that Western District of Washington Local Rule 

7(b)(2) conflicts with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and ‘cannot provide a valid basis 

for granting a motion for summary judgment’)).

This Court will address the merits of Defendant’s Motion recognizing that the 

Motion may only be granted if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. 

Analysis

Defendant argues it is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law because it 

has complied with the requirements of FOIA in responding to the Request. Defendant 

Case 4:18-cv-00454-JGZ-DTF Document 41 Filed 10/07/19 Page 4 of 8
- 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

asserts that the documents it withheld or produced in redacted form were properly withheld 

or redacted under exemptions (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7) and (b)(7)(C). (Doc. 39 at pp. 4-9.)

FOIA Exemptions

Exemption (b)5. FOIA exemption (b)5 exempts from disclosure “inter-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). The exemption applies 

to information that is normally privileged in the civil discovery context. See U.S. v. Weber 

Aircraft Corp., 465 U.S. 792, 800-01 (1984); NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 

132, 149 (1975). The deliberative privilege protects the decision-making process of 

government agencies. Sears, 421 at 150. See also, Missouri ex rel Shorr v. U.S. Army Corps 

of Eng’rs, 147 F.3d 708, 710 (8th Cir. 1998) (“The purpose of the deliberative process 

privilege is to allow agencies freely to explore alternative avenues of action and to engage 

in internal debates without fear of public scrutiny.”). The privilege applies if the material 

is pre-decisional (i.e., before the decision or action on the matter discussed) and 

deliberative (i.e., it makes recommendations or expresses opinions on legal or policy 

matters). See Sears, 421 U.S. at 150; Shorr, 147 F.3d at 710.

Here, Defendant presented the testimony of Michael Marguis (Marquis), Director

of the FOI/PA Division, Office of the Secretary (OS), of the United States Department of 

Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C. (Doc. 40 at pp. 7-11.) Director Marquis 

has avowed that the information withheld under exemption 5’s deliberative process 

privilege in this matter “consists of draft documents, and portions of email correspondence 

and memorandums containing opinions, recommendations, and deliberations of OCR 

staff.” Id. at p. 3, ¶ 10. Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence that creates a genuine 

dispute regarding this testimony.

This Court determines that the threshold requirement of exemption 5 has been met.

Exemption (b)(6). Exemption (b)(6) protects information “in personnel and medical 

files and similar files” when disclosure of the information “would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). The court applies a twoCase 4:18-cv-00454-JGZ-DTF Document 41 Filed 10/07/19 Page 5 of 8
- 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

step analysis in determining whether information was properly withheld under exemption 

(b)(6). “First, [the court] evaluate[s] the personal privacy interest at stake to ensure ‘that 

disclosure implicates a personal privacy interest that is nontrivial or ... more than [ ] de 

minimus.’” Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest., Inc. v. Centers for Disease 

Control & Prevention, 929 F.3d 1079, 1091 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Cameransesi v. U.S. 

Dep’t of Def., 856 F.3d 626, 637 (9th Cir. 2017)). (additional citation omitted). “Disclosures 

that would subject individuals to possible embarrassment, harassment, or the risk of 

mistreatment” – including disclosures of an individual’s identity – “constitute nontrivial 

intrusions into privacy under Exemption 6.” Civil Beat Law Center, 929 F.3d at 1091 

(quoting Cameranesi, 856 F.3d at 638). 

“Second, ‘the requester ‘must show that the public interest sought to be advanced is 

a significant one and that the information [sought] is likely to advance that interest.’” Id. 

(quoting Cameranesi, 856 F.3d at 637). (additional citation omitted). “For this second step, 

‘the only relevant ‘public interest in disclosure’ to be weighed in this balance is the extent 

to which disclosure would serve the ‘core purpose of the FOIA,’ which is ‘contribut[ing] 

significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government.” Id. 

(citations omitted). 

Here, Director Marquis has stated that exemption 6 was invoked specifically to 

protect the names, contact information, and testimony that was provided to the OCR 

investigator during the course of OCR’s investigation. (Doc. 40 at p. 9, ¶ 6.) Director 

Marquis states that the content of the redactions could “reasonably be traced back to the 

individual.” Id. Director Marquis avows that given the nature of the records and their 

inclusion in the investigative file, “the individuals identified in these records have a 

substantial privacy interest in protecting withheld information.” Id. Plaintiff has failed to 

present any evidence that creates a genuine dispute regarding Director Marquis’ testimony. 

Plaintiff has also failed to establish the requirements of step two discussed above; namely, 

that the public interst sought to be advanced is a significant one and that the information 

sought is likely to advance that interest.

Case 4:18-cv-00454-JGZ-DTF Document 41 Filed 10/07/19 Page 6 of 8
- 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

This Court determines that the requirements of exemption 6 have been met.

Exemptions (b)7 and (b)(7)(C). Exemption (b)7 protects records or information 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the extent disclosure could reasonably be 

expected to cause one of the harms enumerated in the subpart of the exemption. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 552(b)(7). Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes are exempted 

under exemption (b)7(C) to the extent the records’ production could reasonably be 

expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Id. at § 552(b)(7)(C). The 

categorical withholding of information that identifies third parties is ordinarily appropriate 

under exemption (b)7(C) due to the strong privacy interest inherent in law enforcement 

records. See U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Comm. For Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 

780 (1989); Fiduccia v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 185 F.3d 1035, 1047-48 (9th Cir. 1999) 

(protecting individuals named in reports regardless of the circumstances). If third parties 

are in issue, it is the requester’s burden to articulate a reason for requesting the information, 

and to show that the public interest is significant, and the information sought is likely to 

advance that public interest. Lane, 523 F.3d at 1137.

Here, Director Marquis states that certain records responsive to Plaintiff’s Request 

were compiled by OCR during the course of the investigations that are referenced in the 

Request. (Doc. 40 at p. 10, ¶¶ 18, 19.) Director Marquis also states that the records in issue 

under exemption (b)(7)(C) were compiled for law enforcement purposes. Id. at p. 10, ¶ 19. 

He explains that OCR created these records in connection with its investigation of a HIPPA 

complaint and that OCR has the authority to enforce HIPAA. Included within this 

enforcement power is the ability to levy civil penalties and refer cases to the Department 

of Justice to enforce criminal violations. Id. Plaintiff has failed to controvert Director 

Marquis’s statements.

In light of Director Marquis’ testimony, this Court determines that the requirements

of exemptions (b)(7) and (b)(7)(C) have been met.

In sum, this Court determines that Defendant has established by the reasonably 

detailed and non-conclusory declaration of Director Marquis that it performed a reasonable 

Case 4:18-cv-00454-JGZ-DTF Document 41 Filed 10/07/19 Page 7 of 8
- 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

search in response to Plaintiff’s Request and that there is a logical connection between the 

withheld information and FOIA exemptions relied upon by Defendant.

Conclusion 

For the reasons set forth above, it is recommended that the district court, after an 

independent review of the record, grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), any party may serve and file 

written objections within 14 days of being served with a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation. A party may respond to the other party’s objections within fourteen 

days. No reply brief shall be filed on objections unless leave is granted by the district court. 

If objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. If objections are filed, the 

parties should use the following case number: CV-18-00454-TUC-JGZ.

Dated this 7th day of October, 2019.

Case 4:18-cv-00454-JGZ-DTF Document 41 Filed 10/07/19 Page 8 of 8