Opinion
21-cv-1079-MMA (AHG)
12-05-2022
NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, INC. and GRAHAM SMITH, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defendants.
NOTICE AND ORDER PROVIDING TENTATIVE RULINGS RE: CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. NOS. 23, 32]
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO, United States District Judge.
On December 12, 2022, the parties in this action will appear before the Court for a hearing on Defendants' motion for summary judgment, see Doc. No. 23, and Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment, see Doc. No. 32. In anticipation of the hearing, the Court issues the following tentative rulings:
1. The Court tentatively GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment and DENIES Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment.
2. The Court tentatively GRANTS summary judgment in Defendants' favor and DENIES Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment as to the adequacy of Defendants' search. Although Defendants did not search any additional locations proposed by Plaintiffs, the Court tentatively finds that Defendants met their burden to follow all “leads” and clearly explained their decisions about the scope of their search in the declarations submitted by Edgardo M. Guzman. See Doc. No. 23-2 at 4-13; Campbell v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 164 F.3d 20, 28 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
3. The Court tentatively DENIES Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment as to their request to enter declaratory judgment that Defendants “violated FOIA's requirement to timely respond to [Plaintiffs'] requests.” Doc. No. 32 at 24. Based on the record, the Court tentatively finds that Defendants were untimely in responding to Plaintiffs' FOIA request. Notwithstanding Defendants' delay, the Court tentatively finds that issuing a declaratory judgment against Defendants would neither “clarify and settle the legal relations at issue [nor] . . . afford relief from the uncertainty and controversy giving rise to the proceedings.” See Nat'l Resources Def. Council v. EPA, 966 F.2d 1292, 1299 (9th Cir. 1992).
As these rulings are tentative, the Court looks forward to the oral arguments of counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.