Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02711/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02711-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility
Defendant
James R. Odle
Plaintiff
United States Department of Justice
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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES R. ODLE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-2711 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

VACATING HEARING; GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Before the Court is plaintiff James R. Odle’s motion for summary judgment, filed August

26, 2005. Defendants United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and DOJ Office of

Professional Responsibility (“OPR”) have filed opposition to the motion, to which plaintiff has

filed a reply. Also before the Court is defendants’ motion to set a briefing schedule on a

summary judgment motion defendants anticipate filing in the near future; plaintiff has opposed

the setting of such schedule. Having considered the papers filed in support of and in

opposition to the motions, the Court finds the matters appropriate for resolution without oral

argument, (see Civil L.R. 7-1(b)), hereby VACATES the September 30, 2005 hearing, and

rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. §

Case 3:05-cv-02711-MMC Document 23 Filed 09/22/05 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

1Dr. Martell allegedly revealed information that he learned from a mental examination of

the defendant to members of the prosecution at a dinner party, in violation of a court order. 

(See Grele Decl. Ex. C.)

2The term “Glomar response” refers to Phillippi v. Central Intelligence Agency, 546

F.2d 1009 (D.C.Cir. 1976), in which the Central Intelligence Agency’s refusal, in response to a

FOIA request, to confirm or deny the existence of documents relating to a ship, the Hughes

Glomar Explorer, was at issue.

2

522, et seq., to obtain certain documents from defendants. Plaintiff alleges he is currently a

death row inmate awaiting execution. (See Compl. ¶ 11.) In 2001, the Ninth Circuit held the

state court denied plaintiff due process by failing to conduct a competency hearing at

plaintiff’s trial in 1983. See Odle v. Woodford, 238 F.3d 1084, 1090 (9th Cir. 2001). Although

plaintiff alleges in his complaint that a retroactive competency hearing was initially scheduled

for September 16, 2005, (see Compl. ¶ 2), plaintiff states in his reply to defendants’ motion to

set a briefing schedule that the hearing has been stayed pending resolution of plaintiff’s

appeal of the Superior Court’s order finding a retroactive competency hearing to be feasible. 

(See Pl.’s Opp. to Defs.’ Mot. to Set Briefing Schedule for Summ. J. Mot. at 1 n. 1.) Dr. Daniel

A. Martell (“Dr. Martell”), a forensic psychologist, will be the State’s chief witness at the

hearing. (See Grele Decl. ¶ 6.)

On September 4, 2004 and March 7, 2005, plaintiff made a request under FOIA for

documents in defendants’ possession concerning any investigation of Dr. Martell’s allegedly

wrongful conduct in another capital case, U.S. v. Everett Edward Spivey, Crim. No. 95-491

(D.N.M.).1 (See Grele Decl. ¶¶ 12, 14 and Exs. F and H.) Defendants initially asserted a

“Glomar response,”2 refusing to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records, to

protect the privacy of Dr. Martell. (See Grele Decl. Ex. G.) On July 1, 2005, plaintiff filed a

complaint against defendants seeking “injunctive relief requiring Defendants to disclose the

requested records.” (See Compl. at 7.) 

On July 20, 2005, prior to filing an answer to plaintiff’s complaint, defendants provided

a redacted report of the OPR’s investigation of Dr. Martell to prosecutors in Commonwealth of

Virginia v. Atkins, No. CR-03-R2-8229-01 (Va. Cir. Ct.), pursuant to 5

/ /

Case 3:05-cv-02711-MMC Document 23 Filed 09/22/05 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

3Section 552a(b)(7) allows the government to disclose FOIA exempt information to a

law enforcement agency based on the written request of the head of the agency.

3

U.S.C. § 552a(b)(7).3 (See Hall Decl. ¶ 7.) As a result of such disclosure, “OPR determined

that it was no longer appropriate to assert a Glomar response” to plaintiff’s FOIA request for

documents pertaining to Dr. Martell and began a review to determine which documents are

responsive to plaintiff’s request. (See id. ¶ 9.) Defendants telephoned plaintiff’s counsel on

August 5, 2005 to inform them of the withdrawal of the Glomar response. (See Orleans Decl.

¶ 3.) Defendants’ answer, filed August 8, 2005, specifically admits that OPR’s files “contain

certain information regarding Dr. Daniel A. Martell.” (See Answer at ¶ 2.) Defendants assert

they have identified 839 documents that are responsive to plaintiff’s request and that they are

presently determining which documents they believe are exempt from disclosure under FOIA. 

(See Hall Decl. ¶¶ 11-17.) 

On August 26, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground

defendants improperly asserted a Glomar response and that the documents are not exempt

from disclosure. Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion on the ground they have withdrawn their

Glomar response, and, as noted, have filed a motion to set a briefing schedule on their

potential motion for summary judgment.

LEGAL STANDARD

A “case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties

lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” See Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481

(1982). 

A “case is not ripe where the existence of the dispute itself hangs on future

contingencies that may or may not occur.” See Clinton v. Acequia, Inc., 94 F.3d 568, 572 (9th

Cir. 1996).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion is based almost entirely on the propriety of

defendants’ assertion of a Glomar response. As noted above, however, defendants no longer

assert a Glomar response and have agreed to disclose any responsive documents

Case 3:05-cv-02711-MMC Document 23 Filed 09/22/05 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

4A Vaughn index, derived from Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C.Cir. 1973), is a

list “identifying each document withheld, the statutory exemption claimed, and a particularized

explanation of how disclosure of the particular document would damage the interest protected

by the claim exemption.” See Weiner v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 943 F.2d 972, 977

(9th Cir. 1991).

4

defendants believe are not exempt under FOIA. Moreover, defendants notified plaintiff’s

counsel of their withdrawal of the Glomar response before plaintiff filed his motion for

summary judgment. Consequently, plaintiff’s motion is moot to the extent plaintiff contends

defendants improperly asserted a Glomar response to plaintiff’s FOIA request. 

Additionally, to the extent plaintiff contends defendants are unlawfully withholding

responsive documents, the issue is not ripe for adjudication. Defendants are in the process of

reviewing the relevant documents. (See Hall Decl. ¶¶ 11-17.) If defendants turn over all

responsive documents, there will be nothing for the Court to review. At present, the Court

does not know what specific documents, if any, defendants might withhold, or what exemption

they might rely upon for doing so, nor will the Court engage in speculation in that regard. See

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) (stating district court has “jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from

withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly

withheld”) (emphases added). Until defendants identify any documents they are withholding,

the Court finds plaintiff’s motion is premature, as there is no issue ripe for adjudication. See,

e.g., Clinton, 94 F.3d at 572 (“[A] federal court normally ought not resolve issues involving

contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.”)

(internal quotations and citations omitted).

As noted, defendants attest they are currently reviewing the documents, (see Hall Decl.

¶¶ 11-17), and state they will be prepared to produce documents, provide a “Vaughn index,”4

and file a summary judgment motion with respect to any withheld documents, all by October

21, 2005. (See Opp. at 9.) Defendants’ proposed schedule is reasonable

under the circumstances.

Case 3:05-cv-02711-MMC Document 23 Filed 09/22/05 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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is hereby

DENIED and the hearing set for September 30, 2005 is hereby VACATED. By October 21,

2005, defendants shall produce all responsive documents, serve a Vaughn index with respect

to any withheld documents, and file a motion for summary judgment as to any withheld

documents. The motion will be heard on a 35-day briefing schedule. See Civil L.R. 7-2. After

defendants produce to plaintiff any documents and a Vaughn index, plaintiff may again move

for summary judgment, or file a cross-motion in response to defendants’ anticipated motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02711-MMC Document 23 Filed 09/22/05 Page 5 of 5