Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02054/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02054-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Marlin Knight
Plaintiff
NASA
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE MARLIN KNIGHT, NO. 2:04-cv-2054-MCE-GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

In the present action, Plaintiff George Marlin Knight

(“Plaintiff”) sues the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (“NASA”) for NASA’s alleged noncompliance with

Plaintiff’s requests for information pursuant to the Freedom of

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (“FOIA”). NASA now moves for

summary judgment in its favor, and alternatively requests that

the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s lawsuit for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and

12(h)(3), because of mootness, on grounds that NASA has fully

satisfied Plaintiff’s informational demands. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-02054-MCE -GGH Document 41 Filed 12/21/06 Page 1 of 16
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

 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 1

the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h).

 The California Institute of Technology operates JPL under 2

a contract with NASA.

2

As set forth below, because the Court grants summary judgment for

NASA it need not address NASA’s alternative request for

dismissal.1

BACKGROUND

The Mars Exploration Program is a series of space-flight

projects administered for NASA by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory

(“JPL”) near Pasadena, California. One of the Program’s 2

projects is the so-called Mars Exploration Rovers Project (“MER

Project”), which since 2000 has engaged in gathering scientific

data through the use of “rovers”, or instrumented robotic grounds

vehicles, on Mars. “Spirit” is the name of one of the rovers

used to explore the Martian surface.

Rovers are designed to gather scientific data, but must also

be able to locomote, avoid hazards, deal with emergencies, keep

their batteries charged, recover from failures and otherwise

survive to carry out their scientific data-gathering mission. 

Rovers include various scientific and engineering devices

designed to accomplish these objectives. The Spirit Rover has

exactly seven scientific devices, including two panoramic

cameras, as well as seven engineering cameras. 

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02054-MCE -GGH Document 41 Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 16
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

Information collected by the Spirit Rover is transmitted on radio

signals (known as “telemetry”) directed to antenna complexes in

Barstow, California, Canberra, Australia, and Madrid, Spain. 

Collectively the three complexes constitute the so-called Deep

Space Network (“DSN”). Following receipt by the DSN, the

telemetry data is forwarded via ground communication data lines

to JPL, where it is stored in packet format as a datafile or

“spooler”. The packets are then processed into “data products”

housed on Operations and Science Storage Servers (“OSSs”), where

they are initially aggregated into Experiment Data Records

(“EDRs”). Payload Downlink Leads (“PDLs”) monitor the flow of

data organized in this matter by producing a PDL Report or

downlink report. Those reports cover the information generated

by Rover instruments and devices for each Martian day. 

Ultimately, further processing results in a second order digital

product known as Reduced Data Records (“RDRs”).

On or about June 10, 2004, Plaintiff made a request to NASA,

under the FOIA, for data obtained by the Spirit Rover from Mars. 

That request, which sought receipt logging procedures for the

information being received from Mars, read in pertinent part as

follows:

I am requesting copies of the procedures followed to

log the receipt of data and images from the instruments of

the Spirit Rover including:

1. Miniature Thermal Emission Spectrometer (Mini-TES)

2. Mossbauer (sic) Spectrometer (MB)

3. Apha (sic) Particle X-Ray Spectrometer (APXS)

4. Panaramic Camera

5. Navigation Cameras

Case 2:04-cv-02054-MCE -GGH Document 41 Filed 12/21/06 Page 3 of 16
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

6. Hazcams

7. Microscopic Imager

I am not requesting the actual data or images. I am

requesting the procedure manuals or instructions which

specify what the employees and contractors do to record the

log data and images received from the Spirit Rover.

In addition, Plaintiff submitted a second request to NASA, also

on or about June 10, 2004, for logs recording the receipt of

data, from the aforementioned Spirit Rover instruments, for a

time period encompassing the first thirty-three Martian days

following the Spirit Rover’s touchdown on Mars.

According to Plaintiff, an attorney representing himself in

pro se, he intends to use the Spirit Rover data to publish

articles about Mars and NASA’s handling of data from Mars (Pl.’s

Amended Opp. 7:6-8). Plaintiff’s motivation in seeking the

information centers around the contention that “many

knowledgeable people ... think that NASA is simply not telling

the truth about Mars”, and that there is in fact “abundant

evidence of life, including past intelligent life, on Mars”. 

(See November 8, 2004 email from Plaintiff to NASA’s counsel in

this action, Exhibit 2 to Defendant’s Notice of Motion filed

herein).

No records were initially produced in response to

Plaintiff’s FOIA requests because the two requests were

interpreted as being identical, and because JPL determined that

there were no responsive receipt logging procedure records.

Ultimately, however, JPL’s FOIA Officer realized that receipt

logs were also sought in addition to records pertaining to

receipt logging procedures. 

Case 2:04-cv-02054-MCE -GGH Document 41 Filed 12/21/06 Page 4 of 16
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

Thereafter, Jim Erickson, the MER Project Manager for JPL, along

with the MER Project Data Operations Team, and Software Engineer

Kyran Owen-Mankovich, determined that certain telemetry

information received by the DSN was responsive to the receipt

logs request. JPL personnel concluded that the DSN was the only

likely source of this information, which was extracted from

instrumentation data packets. NASA subsequently produced

information for the first thirty-four Martian days from all

Spirit Rover scientific instruments, plus all engineering

cameras. NASA further released the Application Process

Identifier (“APID”) numbers which identified the

devices/instruments responsible for generating particular subsets

of information.

In addition to the telemetry receipt log information, the

MER Project Principal Investigator, Steve Squyres, Ph.D, and the

Project’s Deputy Principal Investigator, Ray Arvidsen, Ph.D., who

are professors at Cornell University and Washington University in

St. Louis, respectively, both determined that the Spirit Rover

PDL reports were also potentially responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA

receipt logs request in that they record the process of

monitoring and collecting “raw” data products, even if they do

not record the initial receipt of the data itself from Mars. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02054-MCE -GGH Document 41 Filed 12/21/06 Page 5 of 16
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

 A so-called “Vaughn Index” must identify each document 3

withheld pursuant to a FOIA request, state the statutory

exemption claimed, and explain how disclosure would damage

interests protected by the claimed index. See Citizens Comm’n on

Human Rights v. FDA, 45 F.3d 1325, 1326 n.1 (9th Cir. 1994)

(“CCHR”), citing Bowen v. FDA, 925 F.2d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 1991

6

Although other MER Project staff disagreed on various grounds,

NASA ultimately decided to give Plaintiff the benefit of the

doubt by releasing the PDL reports and manuals, with redactions

as detailed in a Vaughn Index spreadsheet. Certain filepaths 3

and other information was withheld for security reasons, in that

dissemination could potentially aid unauthorized use of the JPL

computer systems. Names, initials, email addresses and telephone

numbers were also deleted due to privacy concerns.

With respect to the receipt logging procedure records, once

NASA determined that PDL materials should be provided to

Plaintiff it also decided that MER PDL procedures documents

should also be released. The Declaration of David Lavery

establishes that after consultation with other MER Project

officials about the MER Project data flow, he determined that no

other categories of agency records should be responsive to the

receipt logging procedures request. Lavery Decl., ¶ 49, 50, 59,

62. Eight documents were ultimately identified as responsive and

were produced after redaction for security and privacy concerns.

Following production of the aforementioned materials,

Plaintiff remained dissatisfied with NASA’s response to his FOIA

requests and instituted the present lawsuit. 

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02054-MCE -GGH Document 41 Filed 12/21/06 Page 6 of 16
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

7

STANDARD

Most cases brought pursuant to the FOIA are resolved through

summary judgment. Cooper Cameron Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor,

280 F.3d 539, 543 (5th Cir. 2002). Summary judgment is proper if

“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 material fact and that the

moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56(c). One of the principal purposes of Rule 56 is to

dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses. Celotex

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). 

The agency responding to a FOIA request has the burden of

sustaining the adequacy of its response by demonstrating that it

did not improperly withhold records subject to disclosure under

FOIA. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Tax

Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 142 n.3 (1989). The agency must

“demonstrate that it has conducted a search reasonably calculated

to uncover all relevant documents.” CCHR, 45 F.3d at 1328,

quoting Zemansky v. EPA, 767 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1985). The

“issue to be resolved is not whether there might exist any other

documents possibly responsive to the request, but rather whether

the search for those documents was adequate.” CCHR, 45 F.3d at

1328 (emphasis in original).

An agency may demonstrate the adequacy of its search with

“reasonably detailed, nonconclusory affidavits submitted in good

faith.” Zemansky, 767 F.2d at 571. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-02054-MCE -GGH Document 41 Filed 12/21/06 Page 7 of 16
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

8

For purposes of summary judgment, affidavits describing the

agency’s search procedures are sufficient “if they are reasonably

detailed in their description of the files searched and the

search procedure, and if they are nonconclusory and not impugned

by evidence of bad faith. Id. at 573. Once an agency meets its

initial burden in this regard, its position can be rebutted “only

by showing that the agency’s search was not made in good faith.” 

Maynard v. CIA, 986 F.2d 547, 560 (1st Cir. 1993), citing Miller

v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 779 F.2d 1378, 1383 (8th Cir. 1985). 

Because agency affidavits are accorded a presumption of good

faith, they cannot be rebutted by “purely speculative claims

about the existence and discoverability of other documents.” 

Maynard, 986 F.2d at 560, quoting SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC,

926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff takes issue with the adequacy of NASA’s responses

to his FOIA requests. First, he contends that NASA’s efforts to

locate responsive information was not sufficiently comprehensive. 

Next, he identifies certain categories of documents which he

claims should have been released but were not. Finally,

Plaintiff takes issue with the propriety of certain redactions

NASA made to the documents that were provided to him. Each of

those contentions will be addressed in turn.

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02054-MCE -GGH Document 41 Filed 12/21/06 Page 8 of 16
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

9

1. Adequacy of Search

Plaintiff describes NASA’s method in locating responsive

documents as “hit or miss”, and asserts that NASA unreasonably

relied on “informal” oral inquiries directed to key MER Project

members for purposes of locating documents likely to fall within

the purview of Plaintiff’s informational requests. The Court is

unpersuaded by those arguments.

NASA’s Freedom of Information Act Officer at its Pasadena

Management Office, Dennis B. Mahon, forwarded the two requests at

issue in this litigation to JPL’s Contract Manager, Jody Brown,

upon their receipt. Ms. Brown, in turn, queried responsible

employees associated with the MER Project regarding their

knowledge of the existence or location of responsive documents. 

Not surprisingly, Ms. Brown determined through that consultation

that only MER Project members would likely know about procedures

for logging the receipt of data and images from the Rover. Brown

Decl., ¶ 5. Although Mahon was initially told that no procedural

manuals or instructions had been prepared for purposes of logging

the data received from the Rover on Mars, once Mahon realized

that logs themselves were also requested, she instituted another

search. That search resulted in a conclusion that the DSN

Network, which received the telemetry signals from the Rover, was

the only likely source for responsive information as to the logs

themselves. Brown Decl., ¶¶ 10-12. 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02054-MCE -GGH Document 41 Filed 12/21/06 Page 9 of 16
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

 One of the engineering cameras, however, the Descent 4

Imager, was inoperable during the time period encompassed by

Plaintiff’s FOIA request.

10

According to Software Engineer Kyran Owen-Mankovich, the

telemetry information is stored on a DSN server which records and

associates the data, and he concluded following consultation with

the MER Project Manager that Plaintiff’s request could be

interpreted to refer to that logging information. Owen-Mankovich

Decl., ¶¶ 5-6. Mr. Owen-Mankovich subsequently assembled this

information into text-file format for the Martian days requested,

and further generated a list of the APID codes which explained

the data’s source. Id. at ¶¶ 6-13. As indicated above,

information from all seven scientific instruments on the Rover,

as well as its seven engineering cameras, was analyzed.4

In addition to this information, as indicated above MER

Project officials Steve Squyres, Ray Arvidsen, and David Lavery

further regarded the Spirit’s PDL Reports as being potentially

responsive to Plaintiff’s request for “logs recording the receipt

of data.” Lavery Decl., ¶ 50. While that conclusion was

disputed by others on the MER Project staff, in the interests of

as comprehensive a disclosure as possible NASA ultimately decided

to release the PDL Reports. Once that conclusion was reached,

the subject of logging procedures was further analyzed, and after

consulting with others it was determined that the MER Project

Documentation Library was the only place likely to contain

downlink procedure documents, which were in turn found to consist

only of certain PDL procedures. Lavery Decl., ¶ 49, 50, 59, 62. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-02054-MCE -GGH Document 41 Filed 12/21/06 Page 10 of 16
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

11

The Library’s Document Index was searched and, as indicated

above, eight documents were ultimately determined to be

responsive and produced following redaction.

The search for responsive documents, then, was done in

consultation with the MER Project’s top experts, who identified

and participated in searching for documents likely to be

responsive. While Plaintiff contends that NASA was obligated to

do a complete computer search in addition to drawing upon the

knowledge and guidance of these experts, there is no requirement

that an agency search all possible sources in response to a FOIA

request when it believes all responsive documents are likely to

be located in one place. Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d

57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990, citing Marks v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

578 F.2d 261, 263 (9th Cir. 1978). An agency may properly

explain by declaration or affidavit that records are not apt to

be found at other locations. Id. While Plaintiff takes issue

with the conclusions reached by top MER Project officials, it is

reasonable that those experts would have a solid grasp on the

receipt and processing of data transmitted from the Spirit Rover. 

The Court agrees with NASA that its search in this case were

conducted by skilled persons working within well-defined sets of

data. NASA was not required to search further in order to

satisfy its obligations under FOIA in this matter.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02054-MCE -GGH Document 41 Filed 12/21/06 Page 11 of 16
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

12

2. Documents Alleged to Have Been Improperly Withheld

In addition to challenging the adequacy of NASA’s search

itself, Plaintiff further identifies specific categories of

documents he believes exist but were not provided. 

He believes that some substantive information was deleted for an

“unidentified set of instruments.” Opp’n, 21:12-14. He further

believes that Operations and Science Storage (“OSS”) serves

contain rover data and logs that has not been produced. 

Additionally, Plaintiff claims that a log book exists for one of

the items on the Rover, the Moessbauer Spectrometer. Because

Plaintiff asserts that a log book indeed exists for the

Spectrometer, he speculates that it is “reasonable to believe

that similar log books exist for other instruments on the Rover.” 

Opp’n, 25:26-28. Finally, Plaintiff points to several other logs

that he believes are mentioned in NASA documents but have not

been produced. Specifically, he cites the SDC and EVR logs as

examples in that regard, and further argues that there are EDR

“lists” of data and images received from Mars that should in fact

have been disclosed as responsive logs.

NASA has adequately addressed each of these concerns. 

First, the logs of OSS activity do not record JPL’s receipt of

data from Mars, but instead record the process of subsequent data

product generation. See Supp. Lavery Decl., ¶ 9. Consequently

the OSS materials go beyond the scope of Plaintiff’s FOIA

request, which can only reasonably be read as encompassing logs

recording receipt of data directly from the Spirit Rover to

Earth. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-02054-MCE -GGH Document 41 Filed 12/21/06 Page 12 of 16
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

13

Similarly, NASA has explained that both the EVR and SDC logs do

not record any activity responsive to Plaintiff’s request for

logs recording the receipt of actual data from Mars. 

NASA further explains that what Plaintiff refers to as missing

data for temperature and voltage sensors associated with the

PANCAM Camera are indeed included within the log records

pertaining to the PANCAM. NASA also explains that the so-called

Moessbauer log book in fact merely states the settings of the

Moessbauer Spectrometer, is neither a log or a book, and

consequently is non-responsive as well. See Supp. Lavery Decl.,

¶ 5, 7, 9. Finally, with respect to the alleged EDR lists, they

contain no facts concerning the process of taking the data

received from the Spirit Rover into possession. Any reasonable

reading of Plaintiff’s FOIA requests leads to the conclusion that

they hinge on that process. 

3. Propriety of Redaction Procedures

FOIA allows certain documents to be exempt from FOIA

disclosure. Items “related solely to the internal personnel

rules and practices of an agency”, for example, are exempted

under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2). Subdivision (b)(2) covers not only

internal and generally trivial matters of no real interest to the

public (the so-called “low 2" exemption), but also items in the

“high 2" category posing a potential risk to agency security

should they be disclosed. This latter category would include,

for example, information facilitating a computer hacker’s access

to vulnerable agency databases, like file pathnames, keystroke

instructions, directory address and other internal information. 

Case 2:04-cv-02054-MCE -GGH Document 41 Filed 12/21/06 Page 13 of 16
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

14

To that end, NASA redacted data from the information provided to

Plaintiff that showed filepaths revealing the directory structure

of the OSS, because such information could make it easier for an

intruder to gain access to the OSS and destroy or falsify

particular data. See Decl. of Stephen L. McConnell, NASA’s Chief

FOIA Public Liaison Officer, ¶ 14.

The other FOIA authorized exemption stems from 5 U.S.C. §

552(b)(6), which allows the government to withhold all

information about individuals in “personnel and medical files and

similar files” if the disclosure of the information “would

constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 

Mr. McConnell explains in his declaration that NASA redacted

certain names, initials, email addresses and telephone numbers

that could give members of the public identity or contact

information for certain non-federal employees. McConnell Decl.,

¶¶ 20-21. McConnell states that he balanced the privacy interest

of the individuals about whom information was redacted with the

public interest in disclosure of the information before

determining that the privacy interests predominated. Id. at ¶

23. These redactions, along with the “high 2" redactions

enumerated above, were detailed in a Vaughn Index spreadsheet

prepared by McConnell showing the page number, an entry number

within the page, the FOIA exemption number or numbers, and a

description of the redacted material. Lavery Decl., ¶ 66;

McConnell Decl, ¶ 12 and Exh. 4. 

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02054-MCE -GGH Document 41 Filed 12/21/06 Page 14 of 16
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

15

NASA has explained how the redactions in question contain private

information about the authors of the PDL Reports, their

replacements on the next shift, and third parties involved in the

payload downlink process, information that could be abused in

various ways through unwanted solicitation and the like. 

Information need not be intimate or embarrassing to qualify for

exemption under subdivision (b)(6). U.S. Dep’t of State v.

Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595, 600 (1982). The fact that

Plaintiff would not abuse private information obtained about the

concerned individuals is irrelevant since information released

under FOIA is in effect released to the world. See Maricopa

Audubon Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1082, 1088-89 (9th

Cir. 1997).

The Court believes that NASA has adequately supported,

through release of a Vaughn Index, the propriety of redactions to

the information provided to Plaintiff under his FOIA request.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02054-MCE -GGH Document 41 Filed 12/21/06 Page 15 of 16
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

16

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that NASA

properly complied with the two FOIA requests that are the subject

of this lawsuit. As such, NASA is entitled to summary judgment

in its favor. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to close

this file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 21, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02054-MCE -GGH Document 41 Filed 12/21/06 Page 16 of 16