Case Detail
| Case Title | Evans v. Salazar et al | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | Northern District of Indiana | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Hammond | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 2:2012cv00466 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2012-11-13 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2015-09-28 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Robert L Miller, Jr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | Cherlyn Evans Renamed in Amended Complaint TERMINATED: 04/02/2014 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | Cheryl Evans formerly known as Cherlyn Evans | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Kenneth Salazar in his official capacity as the US Secretary of the Interior | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Kenneth Salazar in his official capacity as the US Secretary of the Interior; Not Named in Amended Complaint TERMINATED: 04/02/2014 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Constantine Dillon in his official capacity as Superintendant of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore for the National Park Service | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Constantine Dillon in his official capacity as Superintendant of the Indiana Dunes; National Lakeshore for the National Park Service; Not Named in Amended Complaint TERMINATED: 04/02/2014 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Michael T Reynolds in his official capacity as Regional Director of the National Park Service | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Michael T Reynolds in his official capacity as Regional Director of the National Park Service; Not Named in Amended Complaint TERMINATED: 04/02/2014 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Patricia A Rooney in her official capacity as Public Affairs Specialist for the National Park Services | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Patricia A Rooney in her official capacity as Public Affairs Specialist for the National Park Services; Not Named in Amended Complaint TERMINATED: 04/02/2014 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | US Department of the Interior | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | National Park Service | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Opinion/Order [53] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Indiana has ruled that Cheryl Evans is not entitled to discovery in her FOIA suit against the National Park Service because she failed to show how discovery would aid her in opposing the agency's summary judgment motion. The court noted that to the extent the agency failed to justify the way in which it responded to Evans' requests, its summary judgment motion would likely be denied and Evans had provided no reason why she needed to conduct discovery in response to the agency's summary judgment motion. The court observed that "the court understands that Ms. Evans would like to ask the government many more questions; that's the nature of FOIA claims. But a motion to defer consideration of a summary judgment motion so the opposing party may take discovery isn't designed to allow the opposing party to pursue any and all discovery. The discovery sought should be limited to what is needed to oppose the summary judgment motion."
Opinion/Order [68]Issues: Litigation - Discovery FOIA Project Annotation: A recent district court decision from the Northern District of Indiana provides an interesting example of the consequences plaintiffs face when they fail to abide by agency regulations, particularly when it comes to fulfilling a requester's obligations to file an administrative appeal within the time specified by the agency or, in the case of Cheryl Evans, foregoing an appeal altogether. Evans' case also provides an illustration of how such deadlines involving multiple requests on similar topics can easily blur into each other, making it that much more difficult for requesters to keep track of what response is due and when. Although Evans was an attorney, the fact that Judge Robert Miller spent a large part of his decision chiding Evans for trying to evade length limitations through her multiple filings and her focus on filing motions to strike agency affidavits for lack of personal knowledge suggest that she was not an accomplished FOIA litigator. Evans made six FOIA requests to the National Park Service for records concerning the government's jurisdiction over the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Some of those requests involved interim responses from the agency, some were filed after she had sued the agency, and for some, Evans failed to file any administrative appeal at all. Although the agency's responses to her six requests came after the statutory deadline had expired, it did respond to all the requests. For some requests, Evans challenged the agency's search, while for others she focused on the agency's exemption claims made under Exemption 5 (privileges) and Exemption 7 (law enforcement records). Miller addressed Evans' motions to strike first, pointing out that "to hold the government to the page limitations of the Local Rules yet allow Ms. Evans to evade them would be unfair to the government." It would also "waste valuable judicial resources." As a result, Miller noted that "the court will strictly enforce its page limits and will consider arguments raised by Ms. Evans's motions to strike only as they relate to the admissibility issues raised in those motions." Evans attacked an affidavit by Elizabeth McConnell, who was in charge of processing FOIA requests at Lakeshore, arguing that she did not have personal knowledge of the processing of Evans' requests. Miller noted that "Ms. McConnell is competent to testify through personal knowledge regarding what efforts she and her staff undertook in response to Ms. Evans's FOIA requests. That Ms. McConnell didn't specifically name the staff members who helped in the searches doesn't compel a conclusion that she lacked personal knowledge of the searches she oversaw, and Ms. Evans has identified no precedent in support of her argument that vagueness alone renders otherwise competent testimony inadmissible." Evans also attacked NPS Midwest Region FOIA Officer Patricia Rooney's observation about the size of the Region's workload as being irrelevant. Miller pointed out that "the evidence of the Midwest Region's general FOIA workload is relevant, given that Ms. Evans asks the court to find bad faith based on the Park Service's delay in responding to her requests. A large number of FOIA requests doesn't excuse an agency from complying with the statute's deadlines, but it lends some credence to the agency's claim that long delays flow from understaffing, rather than malice." Miller showed particular annoyance with Evans' attempts to strike the agency's supplemental Vaughn index because it did not identify who had prepared it. The agency acknowledged the omission was an oversight and provided information about who prepared it. Miller observed that "once again, these are merit arguments with no clear connection to admissibility; Ms. Evans essentially argues that the index is insufficient to carry the government's burden on summary judgment, that the court should not credit it, and that the government wasn't entitled to withhold the documents identified in it. The issue on a motion to strike is admissibility, and evidence isn't made inadmissible by virtue of being inaccurate, untrustworthy, or noncompliant with a statutory requirement under FOIA." But Miller found Evans ran aground by failing to file an administrative appeal for three of her requests, waiting until after receiving the agency's tardy response. Citing Oglesby v. Dept of Army for the proposition that a requester was required to appeal an agency's response if it came before filing suit, Miller found Evans clearly had not done that. Evans argued that the D.C. Circuit's decision in CREW v. FEC, 711 F.3d 180 (D.C. Cir. 2013), effectively overturned Oglesby on this point. But Miller indicated that CREW was limited to its facts, in which CREW argued that the FEC had failed to make a determination that would require CREW to file an administrative appeal before going to court. However, the CREW decision says much more than that. The D.C. Circuit resolved the case by explaining the statutory basis for finding that a requester had constructively exhausted his or her administrative remediesâ€"either when the agency misses the 20-day deadline for responding to a request, or when the agency misses the 20-day deadline for responding to an administrative appeal. The D.C. Circuit clearly said that when either of those instances occurs, the requester has constructively exhausted his or her administrative remedies and may go directly to court. Nowhere in CREW is there any suggestion that an agency can cure that exhaustion by a tardy response before the requester files suit. While there is a measure of appeal in Oglesby to administrative fairness, there is no statutory basis identified in the decision for requiring such a requirement in the face of statutory language that directly contradicts it. For another of her requests, Miller pointed out that Evans failed to file an administrative appeal before the expiration of the agency's 30-day time limit for appeals. Evans attacked the fairness of the agency's regulation and noted that because the agency had revised its original final response to include other documents it had made a new determination with a new 30-day time period. Rejecting her argument, Miller noted that "Ms. Evans cites no support for her contention that any later revision of an agency's decision can revive claims that a requester hasn't timely exhausted, and nothing in the statute or the Department of the Interior's implementing regulations suggests that an agency's revisiting of a denied request excuses a requester from the requirements of timely appealing the initial denial." Miller approved of the agency's exemption claims. Because her requests dealt with jurisdictional issues, many of the exemption claims dealt with the attorney-client privilege. Evans contended that the agency had waived any privilege for a 1973 document discussing jurisdiction because it had been shared with a federal magistrate judge. Miller noted that "even if discussions about a legal position with an officer of the court acting in his official capacity constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege for FOIA purposesâ€"a proposition that neither party has directly addressedâ€"the court has no basis on which to conclude that such conversations actually occurred. . .As the court reads it, the letter in question says nothing about whether the specific documents at issue were ever shared with [the magistrate judge]; it merely confirms that the Magistrate discussed jurisdictional issues with the Park Service generally." Evans challenged the agency's withholding of a list of roads over which the Park Service may or may not have jurisdiction for traffic control purposes under Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques), arguing that such a list was not a technique, procedure, or guideline. Miller, however, concluded that the list qualified for protection. He observed that "a confidential, internal police document memorializing these choices and listing which neighborhoods the department is likely to patrol is a classic example of a law enforcement guideline whose dissemination would likely risk circumvention of the law."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to Exhaust, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Attorney-client privilege, Exemption 7(E) - Investigative methods or techniques | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Affidavit Defendants' Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Defendants' Response to Discovery Request Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike Memorandum in Support of Rule 56(d) Motion Motion for Summary Judgment Motion to Strike Motion to Strike Declaration Motion to Strike Declaration Motion to Strike Vaughn Index Order Granting Time to File Discovery Request Response Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint Reply to Discovery Opposition Response Statement of Genuine Disputes Statement of Material Facts Vaughn Index | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
