Demoruelle v. Department of Veterans' Affairs
1:16-cv-00562
D. Haw.Jun 30, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Joseph and Sandra Demoruelle (pro se) sued the Department of Veterans Affairs under FOIA and the Privacy Act seeking records, corrections to PII, damages, injunctive relief, and costs/fees after multiple requests in 2015–2016.
- The VA identified ten requests (eight FOIA + several Privacy Act submissions) and produced records or responsive explanations for each; some searches returned “no records.”
- Plaintiffs challenged mainly the VA’s response to the 6/8/16 and 7/27/16 FOIA/Privacy Act requests and asserted Privacy Act accuracy and access violations; they conceded adequacy of searches for many FOIA requests.
- The VA submitted detailed declarations describing search scope, methods, and results; it later produced additional responsive material, and contended remaining items were being processed or subject to Privacy Act procedures.
- The court found (1) FOIA claims moot where VA produced nonexempt records and plaintiffs do not dispute adequacy of searches; (2) Privacy Act accuracy claims barred for lack of jurisdiction because they would require review of VA benefits determinations; (3) some Privacy Act access claims were satisfied by VA productions, and one (medical records from 1989–1997) was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Remedy: Court granted the VA’s summary judgment; plaintiffs’ summary judgment was granted in part (costs) and denied in part (other relief). Plaintiffs to file bill of costs; attorneys’ fees denied (pro se cannot recover attorney fees).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FOIA claims survive when VA production is belated | VA delayed; still entitled relief to compel production and enjoin withholding | VA produced all nonexempt records and its searches were adequate | FOIA claims moot where VA produced records and plaintiffs don’t dispute adequacy; judgment for VA |
| Whether Privacy Act accuracy claims (seeking damages) are justiciable | Demoruelle: VA failed to maintain accurate records causing injury; seeks damages | VA: accuracy claims would require reviewing VA benefits adjudication and are barred by 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) and VCS | Accuracy claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because they would affect VA benefit determinations |
| Adequacy of VA search for specific Privacy Act/FOIA requests (6/8/16, 7/27/16) | Plaintiffs: some requested documents exist and were not produced, so search was insufficient | VA: produced detailed, good‑faith declarations explaining searches and why particular documents were not located | Court accepted VA declarations; searches were adequate and VA satisfied those requests |
| Privacy Act access procedures and exhaustion (8/14/16 request for old medical records) | Plaintiffs sought medical records and were impatient for response | VA: Privacy Act claims have no statutory response deadline; some requests routed to records center and require exhaustion | Claim dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; VA’s ongoing processing not a jurisdictional basis for suit |
Key Cases Cited
- Yonemoto v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 686 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2011) (FOIA’s core purpose and mootness where agency fully complies)
- Papa v. United States, 281 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2002) (production of nonexempt material moots FOIA claims)
- Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (1980) (three‑part test for FOIA withholding of agency records)
- Rouse v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 567 F.3d 408 (9th Cir. 2009) (Privacy Act accuracy and damages elements and distinctions between access and accuracy claims)
- Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2012) (limits on district court jurisdiction over VA benefits adjudications)
- Zemansky v. Env’t Prot. Agency, 767 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1985) (agency need only show adequacy of search, not production of every document)
- Weisberg v. Dep’t of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (standards for FOIA search adequacy and agency affidavits)
- Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (requirements for agency affidavits describing search scope)
- Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 (1991) (pro se litigants who are not attorneys cannot recover attorney’s fees)