Opinion
No. C-07-2889 MMC.
December 16, 2009
Before the Court are defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and plaintiffs' Motion Re: Request for Finding of Spoliation of Evidence, each filed September 18, 2009. The matters came on regularly for hearing on October 23, 2009. Colleen Duffy-Smith, Dario de Ghetaldi, and Michael G. Reedy appeared on behalf of plaintiffs; Jonathan U. Lee appeared on behalf of defendant.
On the record at the October 23, 2009 hearing, and by order dated October 23, 2009, the Court granted in part defendant's motion for summary judgment and deferred in part ruling on the remainder of the motion; specifically, the Court deferred ruling to the extent plaintiffs seek documents contained in the files of outside contractors Bearing Point and KPMG and one particular document, the "new county file", assertedly contained in the files of outside contractor Acumen. Ruling on plaintiff's motion was deferred as well. The parties were afforded the opportunity to file supplemental declarations and briefing regarding the deferred matters, and a hearing on said matters was set for December 18, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. Thereafter, both sides filed supplemental declarations, and defendant filed a supplemental reply.
Having reviewed the parties' respective supplemental filings, the papers previously filed in support of and in opposition to the motions, and the arguments of counsel, the Court deems the matters suitable for decision thereon, VACATES the December 18, 2009 hearing date, and rules as follows:
1. Defendant's Motion
The Court finds defendants have satisfied their burden of demonstrating they "conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents." See Zemansky v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 767 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1985) (noting issue "is not whether there might exist any other documents possibly responsive to the request, but rather whether the search for those documents was adequate") (emphasis in original; internal quotation and citation omitted); see also Citizens Comm'n on Human Rights v. Food Drug Admin., 45 F.3d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting "[t]he adequacy of the agency's search is judged by a standard of reasonableness, construing the facts in the light most favorable to the requestor"). Accordingly, defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the deferred portion of their motion.
2. Plaintiffs' Motion
The Court finds defendant's efforts to preserve documents responsive to plaintiffs' FOIA requests were reasonable and adequate. Accordingly, plaintiffs have failed to show sanctions are warranted.
CONCLUSION
1. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.2. Plaintiffs' Motion Re: Request for Finding of Spoliation of Evidence is hereby DENIED.