Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
JS-6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
SOUTHERN DIVISION
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
)
)
)
)
ORLY TAITZ,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SYLVIA BURWELL, in her capacity as )
)
the Secretary of HHS,
)
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
23
24
I. INTRODUCTION
25
26
In December 2014, plaintiff Orly Taitz filed a complaint against Sylvia Burwell in
27
Ms. Burwells capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services
28
(HHS). The complaint alleges that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
-1-
(CDC), a federal agency under HHS, failed to properly respond to a request Taitz made
under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on November 2, 2014. In its motion to
dismiss, the Government argues that Taitzs complaint must be dismissed because the
proper defendant in a FOIA action is HHS itself, not Secretary Burwell acting in her
official capacity. The Government adds that even if the proper defendant were
substituted here, judgment should be entered in favor of the defendant because CDC,
through sworn declarations, has demonstrated that it conducted searches that were
reasonably calculated to uncover all responsive records, and has fully responded to
Plaintiffs FOIA request, thus making Taitzs complaint moot. Given the evidence the
10
Government has put in the record concerning the adequacy of HHSs response to Taitzs
11
FOIA request1 and the paucity of evidence Taitz has provided to counter HHSs position,
12
the Court hereby GRANTS the Governments motion for summary judgment.2
13
14
II. BACKGROUND
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
25
26
27
28
Taitz argues that because the Government was late in responding to her FOIA request, it should be
taxed with the cost of her bringing suit against it. Because she has provided no legal support for this
position, her request is denied without further consideration. See Guatay Christian Fellowship v. Cnty.
of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 987 (9th Cir. 2011) (We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant,
and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim.).
2
Having read and considered the papers presented by the parties, the Court finds this matter appropriate
for disposition without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set
for November 23, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. is hereby vacated and off calendar.
-2-
6
7
8
9
10
Taitzs FOIA request and indicated that it would be forwarded to its FOIA office on her
11
behalf. (Compl. at PageID 2.) On December 18, 2014, Taitz filed an action in the United
12
States District Court, Southern District of Texas, naming Secretary Burwell as the
13
defendant and challenging CDCs failure to properly respond to her FOIA request.
14
(Compl.)
15
16
CDC asserts that it conducted searches for documents that are responsive to Taitzs
17
request, and has submitted declarations describing the search process from CDC FOIA
18
Officer Katherine Norris and CDCs Health Policy Lead for the Quarantine Border
19
Health Services Branch within the Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, Kate
20
21
22
23
In response to her FOIA request, Taitz was provided with the following
documents:
24
25
1. 32 pages of template form quarantine and isolation orders (Pearson Decl. 4);
26
27
28
-3-
of Ebola Risk level and Prediction of total Ebola cases expected by January
4
5
A total of 73 pages of responsive documents were located in the searches. (Norris Decl.
9.) Eight pages were released with redactions under FOIA Exemption 6, with the
an isolation order.3 (Id.) The remaining 65 pages were released in full. (Id.) CDC
provided Plaintiff with the responsive documents on January 23, 2015. (Dkt. 4-1, FedEx
10
Delivery Confirmation.)
11
12
13
Taitzs action was moot because CDC had fully complied with her FOIA request. (Dkt.
14
4.) On March 31, 2015, the District Court in the Southern District of Texas issued an
15
order transferring this case to this Court because it is the district in which Plaintiff
16
resides. (Dkt. 10.) This Court dismissed without prejudice the Governments motion that
17
was pending before the Southern District of Texas Court, and directed the Government to
18
file its motion to dismiss before this Court. (Dkt. 16.) Taitz moved to strike the
19
Governments updated motion on the basis that it was not identical to the motion filed in
20
Texas. (Dkt. 18.) This Court denied Taitzs motion to strike and instructed her to file a
21
substantive response to the Governments motion. (Dkt. 20.) Taitz subsequently filed
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
There is no indication in the briefing that Taitz is challenging the Exemption 6 redactions of the
individuals identifying information. Because the Government is not asserting that it is withholding any
other information at all from Taitz, it is not necessary for the Government to provide her with a Vaughn
Index in this case.
-4-
2
3
The United States can only be sued to the extent that it has waived its sovereign
immunity. Baker v. United States, 817 F.2d 560, 562 (9th Cir. 1987). Waiver of
sovereign immunity under FOIA permits the Court to have jurisdiction to enjoin the
agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency
(1) improperly (2) withheld (3) agency records. Spurlock v. FBI, 69 F.3d 1010,
10
1015 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 445
11
U.S. 136, 150 (1980)). Unless each of these criteria is met, a district court lacks
12
jurisdiction to devise remedies to force an agency to comply with the FOIAs disclosure
13
requirements. Spurlock, 69 F.3d at 1015 (quoting Dept of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492
14
15
16
FOIA cases are regularly decided on motions for summary judgment. See Lane v.
17
DOI, 523 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Miscavige v. IRS, 2 F.3d 366, 368 (11th
18
Cir. 1993)). In FOIA suits, to be entitled to summary judgment, the agency must prove
19
that each document (1) was produced, (2) was not withheld, (3) is unidentifiable, or (4) is
20
exempt from disclosure. Kissinger, 445 U.S. at 150; Weisberg v. U.S. Dept of Justice,
21
627 F.2d 365, 368 (D.C. Cir. 1980). The agency is not required to create records to
22
respond to a FOIA request, see, e.g., NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 162
23
(1975), and is not obliged to look beyond the four corners of the request for leads to the
24
location of responsive documents, Kowalczyk v. Dept of Justice, 73 F.3d 386, 389 (D.C.
25
Cir. 1996).
26
27
The Court must evaluate the search conducted by HHS to establish that the search
28
was reasonably calculated to uncover all responsive records. See Zemansky v. EPA, 767
-5-
F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1985); Oglesby v. U.S. Dept of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Zemansky, 767 F.2d at 571 (quoting Weisberg v. United States Department of Justice,
11
745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984). If the agency submits such affidavits showing the
12
scope and method of the search, then in the absence of countervailing evidence, or
13
14
15
16
III. ANALYSIS
17
18
19
motion are sufficiently detailed and nonconclusory to demonstrate that the Government
20
has met its burden of conducting a thorough search in good faith. Pearson, Health Policy
21
Lead for CDCs Quarantine Border Heath Services Branch within the Division of Global
22
Migration and Quarantine provided a detailed explanation of how CDCs search was
23
carried out and what the search revealed. (Pearson Decl. 4-13.)
24
25
In response to the request for a form quarantine order, Pearson retrieved the
26
27
isolation orders in the event of a public emergency and provided those documents (32
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
With regard to Dr. Taitzs request for quarantine orders, the Quarantine
Activity Reporting System (QARS), an electronic database, houses all
records of activities which occur within the jurisdiction of the nationwide
network of quarantine stations, the Quarantine Activity Reporting System
(QARS), an electronic database, houses all records of activities which occur
within the jurisdiction of the nationwide network of quarantine stations.
These records include all reports of ill travelers and the issuance of federal
isolation and quarantine orders. QARS began collecting data in 2005. All
records of CDC-issued isolation or quarantine orders since 2005, are
maintained in QARS . . . . There are no other reasonably likely locations of
quarantine or isolation orders issued since 2012.
8
9
(Id. 5, 7.) Pearson stated that she searched QARS using the search terms isolation
10
orders, and quarantine orders from the date range January 1, 2012 to the date the request
11
12
13
Pearson further explained that federal isolation or quarantine orders issued by CDC
14
are issued under the authority of section 361 of the Public Health Service Act, and that
15
16
17
communicable diseases under the Executive Order, (id. 9), and indicated that though
18
Taitz asked for quarantine records relating to enterovirus and rabies, CDC has no
19
authority to issue quarantine/isolation orders for those diseases. (Id. 10.) Pearson
20
explained that [i]t is rare for CDC to issue quarantine or isolation orders and that
21
[s]ince 2012 CDC has issued only one quarantine order. (Id. 11.) She further
22
mentioned that [s]tate and local health entities also have quarantine and isolation
23
authorities that they may exercise with regard to individuals within their jurisdiction.
24
(Id. 12.)
(Id. 8.)
25
26
27
of sick individuals in HHS camps created to accommodate the surge of minor illegal
28
aliens from 2012-2014, Pearson indicted that no federal isolation or quarantine orders
-7-
were issued in response to unaccompanied minors. If such orders had been issued, all
records would have been in QARS and found in the search described above. (Id. 13.)
3
4
member of Norriss staff conducted a search. (Norris Decl. 7.) Norris indicated that
with regard to Taitzs request for Certification of Ebola Risk level and Prediction of
total Ebola cases expected by January 2015, her office searched CDCs Ebola response
website using the search terms ebola risk, epidemiological curve, ebola case count. (Id.
8.) That search yielded 29 pages of responsive documents, which were provided to
10
Taitz. (Id.)
11
12
In response to the Governments briefing and the Norris and Pearson declarations,
13
Taitz attempts to create a genuine issue of material fact by attaching her own declaration
14
15
16
17
18
19
2. A March 30, 2015 letter from the Pinal County Director of Public Health
20
21
22
23
24
3. A July 30, 2014 memorandum from the DHS Office of Inspector General
regarding Oversight of Unaccompanied Alien Children; and
4. A February 16, 2015 email regarding the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol
25
26
information about aliens treated for tuberculosis and various other diseases
27
28
-8-
But as Government correctly notes in its reply, none of these materials submitted
by Taitz relates to any quarantine orders issued by CDC, which is a federal agency under
the Department of Health and Human Services separate from the Department of
Homeland Security, which houses ICE and CBP. HHS has no obligation under FOIA to
6
7
The Pearson and Norris declarations indicate that CDC methodically searched its
own records and released the documents that it was able to locate through its search. If
an agency submits affidavits showing the scope and method of a search, then in the
10
11
judgment is appropriate. Zemansky, 767 F.2d at 571. Here, Taitzs evidence fails to
12
provide any indication that CDC failed to meet its burden to perform adequate searches
13
for responsive records. Searches were conducted as set forth in the declarations of
14
Pearson and Norris, and where no documents were located, the declarations explain why
15
16
17
IV. CONCLUSION
18
19
20
21
22
DATED:
23
24
__________________________________
CORMAC J. CARNEY
25
26
27
28
-9-