Finney v. Social Security Administration
692 F. App'x 907
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Stanley Finney, pro se, sued under FOIA after an agency withheld or failed to produce certain records; district court granted summary judgment for the agency.
- Finney challenged the adequacy of the agency’s search for responsive records and asserted entitlement to particular withheld documents.
- A subcategory of withheld records related to Mr. Ortega and Mr. Polictzo (social security applications) was at issue under Exemption 6 (privacy) of FOIA.
- Finney sought segregated records, a Vaughn index, and in camera review; he also moved under Rule 56(d) for additional discovery before summary judgment.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the district court, rejecting Finney’s evidentiary and procedural objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of search under FOIA | Finney argued the agency did not conduct a search reasonably calculated to find all responsive records | Agency argued its search was adequate and met FOIA search standards | Court held Finney failed to raise a genuine dispute; search was adequate except as noted for the Ortega/Polictzo subcategory |
| Exemption 6 for Ortega/Polictzo records | Finney argued the records should be disclosed | Agency argued the records implicated personal privacy and were exempt under Exemption 6 | Court held Finney failed to show agency did not establish Exemption 6 applied; nondisclosure upheld |
| Entitlement to Vaughn index, segregated records, in camera review | Finney sought detailed index, segregated production, and in camera review to challenge redactions/withholdings | Agency maintained it provided sufficient information to justify withholdings without a statutory need for a Vaughn index | Court held these procedures were not required; agency provided adequate information per FOIA standards |
| Rule 56(d) discovery request | Finney said additional discovery would defeat summary judgment | Agency opposed; court found plaintiff did not show how discovery would preclude summary judgment | Court did not abuse discretion in denying 56(d); additional discovery would not have changed result |
Key Cases Cited
- Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for FOIA appeals)
- Hamdan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 797 F.3d 759 (9th Cir. 2015) (requirements for adequacy of agency FOIA search)
- Cameranesi v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 856 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2017) (analysis for applying Exemption 6 balancing test)
- Fiduccia v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 185 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1999) (no statutory requirement for a Vaughn index; agency must provide sufficient detail to justify withholdings)
- Citizens Comm’n on Human Rights v. Food & Drug Admin., 45 F.3d 1325 (9th Cir. 1995) (standard on district court discretion to deny discovery before FOIA summary judgment)