Court Opinion

ID: 9410541
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-21 18:00:53.34594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:58.413609
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                               JUL 21 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                            U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NORA PHILLIPS; et al.,                           No.   21-55768

              Plaintiffs-Appellants,             D.C. No.
                                                 2:19-cv-06338-SVW-JEM
 v.

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER                          MEMORANDUM*
PROTECTION; et al.,

              Defendants-Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Central District of California
                    Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

                      Argued and Submitted February 9, 2023
                               Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, TALLMAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
       Three plaintiffs, Nora Phillips, Erika Pinheiro, and Nathaniel Dennison

(collectively, plaintiffs), challenge the district court’s denial of their requests for

additional discovery. We have jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.1

       We reject plaintiffs’ argument that the district court erred by granting the

government’s “motion for summary judgment without first having determined the

merits of plaintiff[s’] pending discovery motion.” Garrett v. City & County of San

Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1519 (9th Cir. 1987). The record establishes that the

district court denied plaintiffs’ request for additional discovery regarding a pending

internal government investigation before the court granted summary judgment in

favor of the government.

       The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ requests

for additional discovery. The district court granted summary judgment on

plaintiffs’ constitutional claims for failure to establish standing to seek

expungement or injunctive relief, and plaintiffs failed to identify and explain how

additional discovery would provide them with evidence that “would have

precluded” the district court from granting summary judgment on that basis.

Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006).

       1
        We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the
government because plaintiffs failed to establish Article III standing in an opinion
filed contemporaneously with this disposition. --F. 4th-- (9th Cir. 2023).
                                             2
With respect to standing to seek expungement, plaintiffs conceded to the district

court that they did not anticipate needing any additional discovery to support their

claim, a position that is consistent with plaintiffs’ theory on appeal that the

government’s retention of records, without more, establishes standing. As to other

prospective injunctive relief, plaintiffs failed to identify how the government’s

alleged surveillance posed an ongoing or imminent future threat to them, and

therefore they could not explain how additional discovery would have precluded

the district court’s grant of summary judgment on standing grounds. Thus, the

district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the additional

requested discovery was not “essential” to establish standing to seek the injunction.

See id. Even assuming the additional discovery would have strengthened the

merits of plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, it “would not have shed light” on Article

III standing, which is the issue on which the summary judgment decision was

based. Qualls v. Blue Cross of Cal., Inc., 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1994).

      Finally, the district court provided its reasoning for denying additional

discovery by identifying the correct standard and finding that it was not satisfied.

See Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc., 899 F.3d 666, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2018).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           3