15-493 

Platsky v. Food and Drug Administration

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY 

ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF 

APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER 

IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN 

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY 

ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 

held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 21st day of June, two thousand sixteen. 

PRESENT: 

PIERRE N. LEVAL,

RICHARD C. WESLEY, 

BRENDA K. SANNES, 

Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________ 

Henry Platsky, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 15-493 

Food and Drug Administration, Division of 

Freedom of Information, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_____________________________________ 

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: HENRY PLATSKY, pro se, New York, New 

York. 

FOR DEFENDANT -APPELLEE: MATTHEW SILVERMAN, Assistant United 

States Attorney (Varuni Nelson, Assistant United 

 

 Judge Brenda K. Sannes, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New 

York, sitting by designation.
2 

States Attorney, on the brief) for Kelly T. Currie, 

Acting United States Attorney, Eastern District of 

New York, Brooklyn, New York. 

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New 

York (Townes, J.). 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 

DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Appellant Henry Platsky, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment in favor of the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) with respect to his Freedom of 

Information Act (“FOIA”) complaint. Platsky alleged that the FDA did not adequately respond to 

his request for a report of an FDA investigation. The district court ruled that the FDA’s 

declarations showed that its search was reasonably calculated to uncover responsive documents 

and that Platsky had not made a showing of bad faith. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 

We review orders granting summary judgment de novo. Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 

LLP, 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). “In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment in 

a FOIA case, the defending agency has the burden of showing that its search was adequate and that 

any withheld documents fall within an exemption to the FOIA.” Carney v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 

19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir. 1994). 

We have considered all of Platsky’s arguments and find them to be without merit. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for substantially the reasons stated by 

the district court in its thorough December 24, 2014 decision. 

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk