EL HAM SATAKI ,

Plaintif f , v. BROAD CASTI

NG B OARD OF GOVERNORS, et al. , Defendants
. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT

F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

Civil Action No. 10-00534 ( CKK)

MEMORAN DUM OP INION (Oc tober 22, 2010) This action stems from alleg ations that Plainti ff wa s sexually hara ssed and a ssaulted by a

co-w orker

at the Persian N ews Ne twork and tha t her e mploy er, the Br oadca sting B oard of Gover nors (the “ BB G”) , as we ll as sever al member s and employ ees of the B BG , unlawfully fac ilitated the alleg ed sexual hara ssment, actively attempted to cove r up the incide nts of hara ssment, interfer ed with the investig ation of her administrative complaint, and r etaliated ag ainst her f

or complainingabout her co-w orker ’s har assing conduct a s well as for criticizing BB G’s mana g ement and mission. Plaintiff also asserts that De fenda nts denied her

reque st for a 1

rea sonable medic al ac commodation in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. , and fa iled to timely produce rec ords re quested by Plaintiff in violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U .S.C. §§ 552a et seq. Presently befor e the Court is Def

endants’ [45] Mot ion to

I n addition to the BB G, Plaintiff broug ht suit aga inst severa l Governor s and B BG 1 employ ees, a s well as the Sec reta ry of State. The individual def endants a re B lanquita Cullum, J oaquin B lay a, D. Jeffre y Hirschbe rg , Steven J . Simm ons, Hillary Rodham Clint on, J anice A. Br ambilla, Paul Kollmer-Dor sey , Alex Belida, Ali Sajjadi, Susan J ackson, Joy Wagne r, Michelle Stewart, a nd Susah Shand (collec tively with the BB G, “De fenda nts”).Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary

J udg ment. Plaintiff has failed to oppose or otherw ise respond to De fenda

nts’ Motion. According ly , for the r easons se t forth below, the Court sha ll GRANT-I

N-PART Def

endants’ [45] Mot ion as conc eded w ith respec t to Count VI , and DEN YI N-PART Def

endant’ s Motion as moot wit h respe ct to Counts I , I I , I I I , I V, and V, which Plaintiff has alre ady

voluntarily

dismiss ed fr om this action.

I. BACKG ROUND 2 I n the Amende d Complaint, P laintiff asser ts seven sepa

rate claims in connec tion with her employ ment with the BB G. SeeAm. Compl., Docket No. [35] . Those cla ims may be brie fly summarized as follows:

• C

O U N T I

– F

I R S T A M

E N D M E N T C L A I M . Plaintiff alleg es that De fenda nts infring ed her r ight to fr ee spe ech in violation of the F irst Amendment by reta liating a g ainst her f or her persona l politi cal view s, her c riticism of Voice of Americ a manag ement and f

ailure to a dhere to its m ission to promot e fr eedom in Iran, a nd other unspec ified spee ch (the “F irst Amendment Claim”). Id. ¶¶ 10- 12. 3

• C

O U N T II

– F

I F T H A M E N D M E N T C L A I M . Plaintiff alleg es that De fenda nts violated her

Fifth Ame ndment rig ht to due proce ss by “cove ring up and deny [i ng ] her r elief f

or sexual hara ssment,” “r etaliatingag ainst her to try and kee p her quie t, destroy her me ntally

and phy sically

and to forc e her

out,” and by

tampering

with, intimi dating , and obstructingmateria l witnesses to the alleg ed sexual hara ssment (the “ Fifth Ame ndment Claim”). Id. ¶¶ 13- 15.

The Court shall assume f amiliarity with its prior decisions in this case, which se t forth 2 in detail the fa ctual bac kg round and pr ocedur al history of this case , see Sataki v. Broad. Bd. of Gove rnors , __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2010 WL2195799 (D.D.C. June 1, 2010); Sataki v. Broad. Bd. of Gove rnors , __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2010 WL2679893 (D.D.C. Jul y 7, 2010); Sataki v. Broad. Bd. of Gove rnors , __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2010 WL2679901 (D.D.C. Jul y 7, 2010); Sataki v. Broad. Bd. of Gove rnors , __ F. Supp. 2d. __, 2010 WL3999088 (D.D.C. Oc t. 13, 2010), and shall ther efor e addre ss only

the fa ctual and pr ocedur al bac kg round nec essar y for r esolution of the motion now befor e the Court. Although misnumbere d, the Court shall ref er to the pa

rag raph numbe rs used in the 3 Amended Complaint. 2• C O U N T III

– F

O U R T E E N T H A M E N D M E N T C L A I M . Plaintiff alleg es that Def endants impermissibly

discriminated ag ainst her on the ba sis of her g ender and national orig in, fac ilitated the acts of se x ual har assment, and r etaliated a g ainst her for e x erc ising he r constitutional rig hts in viol ation of the F ourtee nth Amendment’s Equa l Protection Clause (the “ Four teenth Amendme nt Claim”). Id. ¶¶ 16- 18.

• C

O U N T IV

– F

O U R T H A M E N D M E N T C L A I M . Plaintiff alleg es that De fenda nts violated her

Four th Amendment rig ht to be secur e in her person a nd proper ty by allowing her c o-worke r to assault and se x ually hara ss her a

nd by unlawfully “conf iscating ” her

paychec ks (the “F ourth Amendment Claim”). Id. ¶¶ 19- 22.

• C

O U N T V

– R E

H A B I L I T A T I O N A C T C

L A I M . Plaintiff alleg es that De fenda nts denied he r re quest for a

rea sonable medic al ac commodation to be detailed to the Voice of Americ a L os Ang eles off ice in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq . (the “ Rehabilitation Act Claim”). Id. ¶¶ 23- 28.

• C

O U N T V I

– P R I V A C Y A C T C

L A I M . Plaintiff alleg es that De fenda nts failed to timely produce rec ords she re quested in violation of the Privac y Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a et seq . (the “ Privacy Act Claim”). Id. ¶¶ 28- 31.

• C

O U N T V II

– W A G N E R I

N J U N C T I V E R E L I E F . Plaintiff alleg es that she is entitled to interim injunctive relief dur ing the pendenc y of an a dminist rative pr ocee ding and this liti g ation under W agner v. Taylor , 836 F.2d 566 ( D.C. Cir. 1987) (the
“ W agner I njunctive Relief” ). Id. ¶¶ 31- 33. Early in this action, Pl aintiff filed a Motion for a Te mporary

RestrainingOrde r and/or Preliminary

I njunction. SeeDocke t No. [11] . By Memorandum Opinion and O rder dated June 1, 2010, this Court denied Plainti ff’ s reque st for a te mporary restra ining or der. See Sataki v. Broad. Bd. of Gove rnors , __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2010 WL2195799 (D.D.C. June 1, 2010). By Memorandum Opinion and O rder dated July

7, 2010, the Court also denied Plaintiff’s r equest for a pre liminary

injunction. See Sataki v. Broad. Bd. of Gov ernors , __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2010 WL 2679901 (D.D.C. Jul y

7, 2010). I

n the cour se of r ender ing the se two dec isions, the Court held, inter alia , that Plaintiff was not entitled to W agner I njunctive Relief be cause Plaintiff failed to

3show irre para ble har m, a substantial likelihood of succe ss on the merits, or the ba lance of the equities in her f

avor, a nd beca use the re lief she soug ht would in fact a lter, rather than pr eser ve, the status quo . Id. at *15-24. Sig nificantly , Plaintiff did not appea l the Court’s decision deny ing her r equest for

preliminary

relief
. There afte r, on June 15, 2010, Defe ndants moved to dismiss five of the seve n claims in this action pursuant to Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 12(b) (1) a nd (b)( 6); Def

endants 4 simult aneously

moved for summar

y judgme nt on a six th claim – i.e. , Plaintiff’s Privacy Act Claim (Count VI ). SeeDef s.’ Notice of

Mot. to Dismi ss or in the Alternative for Summ. J ., Docke t No. [45] , at 1-2. With respec t to the Privacy Act Claim, Defe ndants asser ted that Plaintiff could not rec over unde r the Privac y Act bec ause she failed to e x haust her a dminist rative
reme dies by

bring ing suit prior to a

final dete rmination and without first filing a n administrative appea l. See Def

s.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismi ss or in the Alternative for Summ. J ., Docke t No. [45] , at 17-18. De fenda nts also argued that Plaintiff’s re quest for c erta in rec ords ac tually fell under the Fr eedom of

I nformation Ac t, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552 et seq. , and Plaintiff fa iled to exhaust her administrative re medies under that statute as we ll. See id. at 18-21. On J uly 14, 2010, Plaintiff moved for a two-we ek extension of time to respond to Def endants’ Motion to Dismiss. SeePl.’s Mot. for Ex tension, Docke t No. [64] . By Minute Orde r, De fenda

nt was g rante d an extension to and including July 28, 2010 to file her opposition paper s. See J uly

27, 2010 Min. Order . Howeve r, Plaintiff, who is repr esente d by counsel in this
Specifica lly , Def

endants moved to dismiss Pl aintiff’s F irst Amendment Claim (Count 4 I ), F ifth Amendment Claim (Count I I ), F ourtee nth Amendment Claim (Count I I I ), and F ourth Amendment Claim (Count I V). See Def s.’ Notice of

Mot. to Dismi ss or in the Alternative for Summ. J ., Docke t No. [45]
. 4action, fa iled to file any response by

J uly 28, 2010, or at a

ny time therea fter. A s of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and the a ccompa nying O rder , the docke t refle cts that no response has been f iled by Plaintiff. I nstead of f

iling an opposition to Defe ndants’ Motion to Dismis s, Plainti ff voluntar ily dismiss ed without prejudice five of the seven c laims asserted in the A mended Complaint. See Pl.’s Notice of Voluntar

y Dismissal of Certain Counts W ithout P rejudice , Docke t No. [67] ; Pl.’s Errata to Correc t Notice of V oluntary Dismissal, Docket No. [68] . Specifica lly , Plaintiff dismiss ed her

First Amendme nt Claim (CountI ), her Fifth Ame ndment Claim (Count I I ), her Four teenth Amendme nt Claim (Count I I I ), her Four th Amendment Claim (Count I V), a nd her Rehabilitation Act Claim (Count V), leavingas open “ claims” in this action only Plaintiff’s Privacy Act Claim (Count VI ) and he r re quest for W agner I njunctive Relief ( Count VI I ). Id. 5 II. LEGAL STANDARD Under L ocal Civil Rule L CvR 7(b), if a pa rty fails to file a me morandum of points and authorities in opposition t o a motion “within the presc ribed time, the Court may treat the motion
as conc eded.” See also Twelve J ohn Does v . Dist. of Col umbia , 117 F.3d 571, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (a

district court may

in its di scre tion “rel[y ] on t he abse nce of a re sponse as a basis for tre ating [a] motion as conce ded”) . The D.C. Circuit Court of Appe als has explained that this rule “is a doc ket-mana g ement tool that fac ilitates effic ient and ef fec tive resolution of motions by

requiringthe prompt joining of issues.” Fox v . Am. Airlines , 389 F.3d 1291, 1294
Plaintiff’s orig inal Notice of Voluntary

Dismissal, dated J uly

28, 2010, also included 5 Plaintiff’s Privacy

Act Claim (Count VI ), but Plaintiff subsequently filed an Er

rata with the Court indicating that the claim was only “inadve rtently ” included. See Pl.’s Errata to Correc t Notice of Voluntary

Dismissal, Docket No. [68]
. 5(D.C. Cir. 2004). The de cision of whethe r to enfor ce the rule “ lies wholly with the district court.” Fed. De

posit Ins. Co. v. Bender , 127 F.3d 58, 68 ( D.C. Cir. 1997) (re viewinga prede cessor

to L ocal Civil Rule L CvR 7(b)). III. DISCUSS ION On J uly 14, 2010, Plaintiff moved for a two-we ek extension of time to respond to Def endants’ Motion, see Pl.’s Mot. for Ex tension, Docke t No. [64] , and the Court g rante d Plaintiff an extension to and including July 28, 2010, see J uly

27, 2010 Min. Order
. Neve rtheless, Plaintiff, who is re prese nted by counsel in this action, fa iled to file any response by the desig nated date, or indee d, at any time therea fter. N ow, almost three months later , the docke t ref lects that no re sponse has be en filed by Plaintiff. Defe ndants’ Motion has bee n outstanding for ove r four

months. 6 Acc ording ly , pursuant to L ocal Civil Rule L CvR 7(b), the Court shall GRANT-I N-PART Def endants’ [45] Mot ion as conc eded w ith respec t to Count VI , and DEN Y-I N-PART Def endant’ s Motion as moot wit h respe ct to Counts I , I I , I I I , I V, and V, which Plaintiff has voluntarily

dismiss ed fr om this action in the tim e since Def endants fir st filed their motion. Additionally , beca

use the only

rema ining “ claim” in this action re lates to Plaintiff’s reque st for W agner I njunctive Relief ( Count VI I ), and be cause the Court denied that r equest on July 7, 2010 – a dec ision P laintiff elec ted not to appea l – there a re no via ble claims re maining in this ac tion.

Plaintiff’s failure to respond is consistent with a broa der history of dilatory

prac tices in 6 this action, including Plaintiff’s f iling of a self-styled “Motion and Memor andum to Chief J udg e and Judge K ollar-Kote lly to Reassig n and Remand Case , by Consent or Otherw ise, to Prior J udg e Richard W. Roberts, or in the Alter native, to Assig n Sataki Cases to Another T rial Judge Throug h Random Assignme nt Sy stem,” Doc ket No. [42] , and a subse quent Motion to Disqualify the Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144, Docket No. [66]
. 6There fore , this action shall be DI SMI SSED in i ts entirety and administratively

closed. An appr opriate O rder

acc ompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: October

22, 2010 /s/ COL L EEN KOL L AR-KOTEL L Y United States District J udg e

7