NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT W ILLIAM LEONAR

D PIC KARD, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. U.S. DEPAR T M ENT OF JUSTIC E,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 17-15945 D.C . No. 3:06-c v-00185-C RB
ORDER

B e fore : GR

AB E R and N.R
. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s , a n d ZIPPS, * Distric t Judge
. The m e m orandum

disposition file d on De c e m be r 13, 2017, is a

m e nde d by the m e m orandum

disposition file d c onc urre ntly with this order, a s follows: On pa ge 3 of the m e m orandum disposition, in the

pa ra gra ph be ginning

" Pla i ntiff a

rgue s tha t," de le t e e ve ry thing in the pa ra gra p h e xc e pt for the first
se nte nc e . R e pla c e the de le te d te xt with the following: Eve n a ssum ing tha

t Pla intiff is c orre c t tha

t e xe m ption 7(D) m a

y be " wa ive d," he is e ntitle d only to e xa c tly

the sa m e inform a tion tha

t ha s be e n public ly

disc l ose d. Pic ka

rd v. DOJ, 653 F.3d 782, 786 (9th C ir. 2011). If, for insta

n c e , the DEA ha d

in its posse ssion a

vide ota p e of Skinne r’ s tria l te stim o ny , Pla intiff m ight be e ntitle d to tha t vide ota p e . 

# F IL ED
F EB 22 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* The Honora

ble Je nnife r G. Zipps, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.B ut wha t Pla intiff se e ks—

re c ords tha

t m ay c onta in som e of the sam e inform ation a

bout whic h Skinne r te stifie d

— is not e xa c tly

the sa m e inform ation tha

t wa s public ly

disc lose d, so FOIA e xe m ption 7(D) a pplie s. W ith this a

m e ndm e n t, the pa

ne l ha s vote d to de ny

Appe lla nt’ s pe tition for pa ne l re he aring. Judge s Gra be r and Sm ith ha

ve vote d to de ny

Appe l la nt’ s pe tition for re he aring e n ba

nc , a nd Judge Zipps ha s so re c o m m e nde d
. The full c ourt ha s be e n a dvise d of the pe tition for re he aring e n ba nc , a nd no judge of the c ourt ha s re que ste d a vote on it. Appe lla nt’ s pe tition for pa

ne l re he aring a

nd re he a ring e n ba nc is DENIED. No furthe r pe titions for pa ne l re he aring a

n d re h e aring e n

ba nc m ay be file d
.

2N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT W ILLIAM LEONAR

D PIC KARD, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. U.S. DEPAR T M ENT OF JUSTIC E,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 17-15945 D.C . No. 3:06-c v-00185-C RB
AM ENDED M EM OR

ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ha rle s R . B re y e r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 6, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and N.R
. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s , a n d ZIPPS, ** Distric t Judge
. Pla intiff W illia

m L. Pic ka rd file d this a c tion unde r the Fre e dom of Inform a t ion Ac t (" FOIA" ), 5 U.S.C . § 552, se e king re c ords he l d by the Drug Enforc e m e nt Age n c y

(" DEA" ) pe rta ining to a

c onfide ntia l inform ant na m e d Gordon Todd Skinner. 

# F IL ED
F EB 22 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a tion a

n d is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Je nnife r G. Zipps, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.1. W e re vie wde novo whe the r, a s the distric t c o urt he ld, FOIA e x e m

ption 7(D) prohibite d the re le a se of Skinne r’ s na m e and the inform a tion tha t he ha d divulge d pre viously

at tria l. 1 Anim a l Le ga l De f. Fund v. FDA, 836 F.3d 987, 990 (9th C ir. 2016) (pe r c uriam ) (e n ba nc ). W e c onc lude that the e xe m ption a pplie s
and tha t the inform a tion wa s prope rly withhe l d. The que s tion for de c ision is whe the r Skinne r spoke , at the tim e he spoke , on the unde rsta

nding tha t his c om m unic a tion to the

gove rnm e nt would re m a in
c onfide ntia l. U.S. De p’ t of Justic e (DOJ) v. La nda no, 508 U.S. 165, 172 (1993). One wa y for a sourc e to be c o nfide ntia l is for thegove rnm e nt to givean e xpre ss
a ssura nc e of c onfide ntia lity . Id. An e xpre ss prom ise is e sse ntia lly una ssa ila ble
and is e a sy

to prove . R ose nfe ld v. DOJ, 57 F.3d 803, 814 (9th C i r. 1995). He re , a
se nior la w y e r for the DEA swore in a de c la ra tion tha t the DEA give s e xpre ss
a ssura nc e s of c onfide ntia lity

to its informants in Skinner’ s position, a nd his written
a gre e m e nt c onfirm s tha

t the a ssura

nc e wa s give n to him . The fa c t tha t the gove rnm e nt sta

te d tha t it c ould not " gua

rante e " that Skinne r’ s ide ntity would ne ve r be divulge d m e re l y

de sc ribe s the re a lity that

the future c annot be known, but doe s

1 On a p pe a l , Pla intiff doe s not c ha lle nge the distric t c ourt’ s a p plic a tion of e xe m ption 7(E) to the

re que st for Skinne r’ s ide ntify ing num be r. He the re fore ha s wa ive d a ny c ha lle n ge to tha

t ruling. Smith v. M a

rsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999). 2not unde rm ine the a ssura nc e of c onfide ntia lity

at the tim e Skinne r gave inform a t ion to theDEA. Pla intiff a rgue s tha t public disc losure of inform a tion a voids the e xe m

ption. Eve n a ssum ing tha

t Pla intiff is c orre c t tha

t e xe m ption 7(D) m a

y be " wa ive d," he is
e ntitle d only

to e xa c tly

the sa m e inform ation tha

t ha s be e n public ly

disc lose d. Pic k ard v. DOJ, 653 F.3d 782, 786 (9th C ir. 2011). If, for insta nc e , the DEA ha d in its posse ssion a

vide ota p e of Skinne r’ s tria l te stim ony , Pla intiff m ight be e ntitle d to tha t vide ota pe . B ut wha

t Pla intiff se e k s—

re c ords tha

t m a y c o nta in som e of the
sam e inform a tion a

bout whic h Skinne r te stifie d— is not e xa c tly the sa m e inform a t ion tha

t wa s public ly

disc lose d, so FOIA e xe m ption 7(D) a

pplie s. 2. The distric t c ourt " c onside r[e d] " Pla intiff’ s re que st for a l l a dditiona l
m a te ria l s to ha

ve be e n " withdra

wn." Pla intiff did not a s k to withdra w his othe r
c la im s, so we vie w this ruling a s, in e sse nc e , a n involunta

ry dism issa l unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C i vil Proc e dure 41(b), a de c ision tha

t we re vie w for a

buse of disc re tion. Tillman v. Tillm an, 825 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th C ir. 2016). W e c o nc lude that the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion. Them e re fa ilure to se e k sum m ary judgm e nt on a ll c la im s doe s not m e an tha t a pa rty a b andons there m a i ning c la im s. R a the r, it m e ans (in the a

bse n c e of som e othe r indic a tor of fa ilure to prose c ute ) sim ply tha t the pa rty inte nds to go to tria

l on those c la im s be c a

use issue s of fa c t
3re m a in. Inde e d , the distric t c o urt did not gra nt De fe nda

n t’ s m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt re ga

rding a ll c at e gorie s of inform a tion, a nd Pla intiff spe c ific a lly

oppose d De fe nda nt’ s m o tion for sum

m ary judgm e n t a l le ging re m a i ning issue s of fa c t. Ac c ordingly , we va c a te the involunta ry dism issa l of the s e c la im s a nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. 3. W e re vie wde novo the suffic ie nc y of a Va u ghn inde x. 2 Ham da

n v. DOJ, 797 F.3d 759, 769 (9th C ir. 2015). Them o s t re c e nt Va ughn inde x ga

ve suffic ie nt de ta il. W e the re fore a ffirm on this issue
. 4. The distric t c ourt fa ile d to m ake findings on se gre ga bility . B ut no suc h findings we re ne c e ssa

ry a s to the two c a te g orie s of inform a tion tha t a re at issue on
a ppe a l, be c a

use Pla i ntiff is not le ga lly e ntitle d to a

ny of the inform a t ion. Thus the re is nothing to se g re gate . AFFIRM E D in par t; V ACAT E D in par t; and RE M ANDE D. The pa rtie s sha l l be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l.

2 Va ughn v. Rose n , 484 F.2d 820 (D.C . C ir. 1973). 4