2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-26-2009 

# D om W a d h wa v . D ept V et e r an Aff airs P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1835

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " D om W a dh wa v . D ept V e t e r an Affair s " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 775. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/775NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 1835

___________ D O M W A D H W A , M .D .,

A ppel l ant v . DEP ARTM ENT OF VE TE RANS AF F AI RS

_________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . N . J . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 06- cv- 04362) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J os eph E. I r enas

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t21, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , FU E N T E S A N D A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t26, 2009)

_______ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM D om W adhw a, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tforthe D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s eydi s m i s s i ng hi s compl ai ntforl ack of j ur i s di ct i on and an o rde r de n y ing h is m o ti o n s fo r reco n side rati o n . W e w il l vac ate the D istri ct C o u rt ’s1

orders and rem and for further proceedings. W adhw a fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n D i s t r i ctC our tal l egi ng thaton A ugus t5, 2006, thr ough couns el , he r eques t ed document s fr om the D epart m entof V et er ans A ffa i r s ( t he “V A ”) pur s uantt o t he Fr eedom of I nform at i on A ct , 5 U . S. C . §§ 552 ets eq. ( “FO I A ”) and the Pr i vacyA ct , 5 U . S. C . §§ 552a ets eq. W adhw a, w ho appea r s t o w or k atthe P hil adelphi a V et erans A ffair s M edical C enter , al l eged that he di d n ot r ecei ve a respon se t o hi s r eques t , and thatt he s t atut or yt i m e per i od i n w hi ch the V A w as r equi r ed t o r es pond had pas s ed. W adhw a s oughtan or derdi r ect i ng the V A t o r el eas e the document s he had r eques t ed. T h e V A fil ed a m o ti o n to d ism iss th e c o m p lai n t or, in the alt ern ati v e, fo r sum m ary j udgm ent . I n s uppor tof i t s m ot i on, the V A s ubm i t t ed the dec l ar at i on of B r endan M in ih a n , a F O IA /P ri v a c yO f f ic e r f o r t h e P h ila d e lp h ia V e te ra n s A f f a ir s M e d ic a l C e n te r. M i ni han att es t ed thaton A ugus t7, 2006, T i m othyG r aham, the form erFO I A / Pr i vacy O ff icer, rep li ed to W ad h w a’s c o u n sel’s l ett er. M iniha n att ac h ed a c o p yo f G rah am ’s le tte r t o h is d e c la ra tio n . G r aham w r ot e thatt he es t i m at ed fe e forpr oces s i ng couns el ’ s r eques tw as $354. 30, and thatthe fe e had t o be pai d befor e the document s w oul d be pr oduced. G r aham deni ed co u n sel’s req u est t o w aive the f ee an d d en ied h is r eq u est t o rev iew the re co rds b ef o re theyw er e dupl i cat ed. G r aham al s o w r ot e thatthe age ncyw oul d concl ude thatcouns el d id n o t w ish to p ro c e e d w ith th e re q u e st if th e a g e n c yd id n o t re c e iv e a re sp o n se w ith inM i nihan al so st at ed thatG raham res po nd ed to a du pli cat i ve F O IA / P ri vacyA ctrequest 1 m ade byW adhw a s hor t l ybefor e couns el w r ot e a l et t eron hi s behal f. 2 14 day s . G r aham st at ed thatt he deni al of the fe e w ai verand es t i m at ed fe es coul d be a p p e a led to V A G e n e ra l C o u n se l. 1 M i ni han furt herat t es t ed thatthe V A di d notr ece i ve a r es pons e t o G r aham’ s l et t er orpaym entof the cos tof pr oduci ng the r eques t ed document s , and thatthe V A O ffi ce of the G ener al C ouns el has no r ecor d of r ece i vi ng an appe al . Fi nal l y , M i ni han s t at ed thaton February27, 2008, t he V A r es ponded t o W adhw a’ s r eques tunderthe Pr i vacyA ct . T he V A i nform ed W adhw a thatt he document s he s oughtw er e notm ai nt ai ned i n a “s y s t em of re c o rd s ” a s d e f

in e d b yth e P ri v a c yA c t a n d w e re th e re f o re n o t a v a ila b le u n d e r t h e A c t. W a d h w a w a s a d v is e d th a t h e c o u ld a p p e a l th e d e n ia l o f h is re q u e s t. B as ed on thes e fa ct s , t he V A ar gued thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on over W a d h w a ’s F O IA a n d P riv a c yA c t cla im s b e c a u se W a d h w a f a iled to e x h a u st h is admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . T he V A al t ernat i vel ym oved fors um m aryj udgm enton W adhw a’ s Pr i vacyA ctcl ai m bas ed on the fa ctthati thas no document s i n i t s s y s t em of re c o rd s. In re sp o n se to th e V A ’s m o tio n , W a d h w a a ss e rte d th a t n e ith e r h e n o r h is at t or neyr ece i ved G r aham’ s l ett er . W adhw a al s o s t at ed thathe had f i l ed other FO I A / Pr i vacyA ctr eques t s and thatthe V A had r efus ed t o pr ovi de hi m the r eques t ed do cum ents . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed W adhw a’ s FO I A cl ai m forl ack of s t andi ng and3

di s m i s s ed hi s Pr i vacyA ctcl ai m bas ed on W adhw a’ s fai l ur e t o exhaus thi s admi ni s t r at i ve re m e d ies . T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso d e n ied W a d h w a ’s m o tio n s f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n . T h is a p p e a l f o llo w e d . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew of the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s di s m i s s al of the compl ai ntforl ack of s t andi ng i s de novo. See C om m on C aus e v. P e n n s y lv a n ia , 5 5 8 F .3 d 2 4 9 , 2 5 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatW adhw a l acke d s t andi ng t o s ue the V A under F O IA b e c a u se th e V A d id n o t d e n yW a d h w a ’s r e q u e st f o r d o c u m e n ts, b u t o f

f e re d to pr oces s hi s r eques tfort he r equi s i t e fe e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tr el i ed on M cD onnel l v. U ni t ed St at es , 4 F. 3d 1227, 1238 ( 3d C i r . 1993) , i n w hi ch w e s t at ed that“a ‘ cas e or contr over s y ’ confe r r i ng s t andi ng ar i s es onl yw hen a pe r s on m akes a r eques tfor in f o rm a tio n u n d e r th e F O IA a n d th e p e tit io n e d a g e n c yd e n ies th a t re q u e st.” M c D o n n e ll, how ever , i s di s t i ngui s habl e bec aus e, unl i ke i n t hi s cas e, the pl ai nt i ff ha d notm ade a FO I A r eques t . H er e, W adhw a made a FO I A r eques tand al l eged i n hi s compl ai ntthatt he V A fai l ed t o r es pond w i t hi n t he t i m e pr ovi ded bys t atut e. W adhw a had s t andi ng t o fi l e a c o m p la in t to e n f

o rc e h is re q u e s t. W e di s agr ee w i t h t he V A t hatW adhw a’ s fai l ur e t o exhaus thi s admi ni s t r at i ve re m e d ie s is a n a lte rn a tiv e g ro u n d o n w h ic h w e m a ya f f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r. W adhw a’ s compl ai ntonl ycl ai m ed thatthe V A fai l ed t o r es pond t o hi s A ugus t5, 2006, F O IA req u est. U n d er F O IA ’s co n stru cti v e e x h au sti o n p rov isi o n , 5 U . S . C . § 5 5 2 (a)(6)(C ),W ad h w a a lso a rgu es in h is brief tha t he s u b m itted o ther F O IA req u ests that w ere 2 ei therdeni ed ort hatcert ai n document s w er e w i thhel d. A s not ed bythe D i s t r i ctC our t , t he s u b j e c to f Wa d h wa ’ s c o mp l a i n ti s h i s Au g u s t5 , 2 0 0 6 , r e q u e s tf o rd o c u me n t s . Wa d h wa asse rt ed in D istri ct C o u rtthat h e so u g h t t o am en d h is co m p lai n t t o inclu d e h is othe r F O IA r eques t s , butt he D i s t r i ctC our tfound i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on thathe h ad n o t i n fa ct m ad e su ch a re q u est, an d that the V A w o u ld b e p rejud iced if h e w ere perm i t t ed att hatt i m e t o amend hi s compl ai nt . W adhw a has nots how n t hatthe D i s t r i ct C our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on. 4 W adhw a w as notr equi r ed t o exhaus thi s admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es i f he di d notr ece i ve a r es pons e t o hi s FO I A r eques tbefor e fi l i ng s ui t . See M cD onnel l , 4 F. 3d at1240; O gl es by v . Un i t e d S t a t e s De p ’ to f Army , 9 2 0 F . 2 d 5 7 , 6 3 - 4 ( D. C. Ci r . 1 9 9 0 ) . Al t h o u g h th e VA es t abl i s hed thati thad i n fac tr es ponded t o W adhw a’ s FO I A r eques t , W adhw a di d not rec eive the re sp o n se. W ad h w a d id n o t am en d h is co m p lai n t and ch all en g e the V A ’s r es pons e t o hi s r eques t . U ndert he ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e, W adhw a’ s fai l ur e t o appea l the V A ’ s r es pons e t o hi s r eques tfordocument s i s nota pr operbas i s fordi s m i s s al of W a d h w a ’s c o m p lain t. T h e V A d id n o t m o v e f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t b a se d o n th e f a c t th a t itre sp o n d e d to W adhw a’ s FO I A r eques t . I f the V A s eeks s um m aryj udgm enton r emand and as s ert s t hat i tt i m el yr es ponded t o W adhw a’ s r eques t , W adhw a w i l l have a n oppor tuni t yt o chal l enge th i s a s s e r t i o n i n a r e s p o n s e t o t h e mo t i o n . S e e F e d . R. Ci v . P . 5 6 ( e ) . Al t h o u g h Wa d h wa a ss e rts in h is b rie f

th a t M in ih a n ’s d e c lar a tio n is f a lse a n d in a c c u ra te, w e m a yn o t en ter tain su c h a n a rg u m e n t in th is a p p e a l. 2 W e a lso d isa g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t itlac k s ju risd ictio n to e n ter tain W a d h w a ’s c laim u n d e r th e P riv a c yA c t b e c a u se W a d h w a f a iled to e x h a u st h is5

admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . T her e i s no s t atut oryr equi r ementof exha us t i on r el at ed t o a r eques tforacc es s t o r ecor ds . See 5 U . S. C . § 552a( d) . T o t he ext entexhaus t i on of admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es i s r equi r ed, i ti s nota j ur i s di ct i onal pr er equi s i t e. See Tay l orv. U n it ed S tat es T rea su ryD ep ’t , 1 2 7 F . 3 d 4 7 0 , 4 7 5 -76 (5th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rt n e e d n o td e t e r mi n e wh e t h e re x h a u s t i o n i s r e q u i r e d i n th i s c a s e b e c a u s e th e VA a l t e rn a t i v e l ymo v e d f

o rs u mma r yj u d g me n to n th e me r i t s o f W a d h wa ’ s P r i v a c yAc tc l a i m, su b m itti n g ev iden ce that the V A inf o rm ed W ad h w a tha t th e d o cu m en ts he req u ested are notcont ai ned i n a “s y s t em of re cor ds ” as defi ned bythe Pr i vacyA ct , and ar e thus not avai l abl e. I n l i ghtof ourr emand w i t h r es pectt o W adhw a’ s FO I A cl ai m , the V A m ay w is h to re n e w its s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n o n W a d h w a ’s P ri v a c yA c t c la im . A c c o rd in g ly , b e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d e c id in g th a t it l acke d j ur i s di ct i on, w e w i l l vaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der s and r emand t hi s cas e for f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s. W a d h w a ’s m o tio n to e x c lu d e th e V A ’s a n sw e r f ro m its s uppl ement al appendi x i s deni ed.