McNeely v. Department of Energy et al, No. 5:2014cv03509 - Document 74 (N.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 30 FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING 34 GENERAL ELECTRIC'S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING 45 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING 49 FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/15/2017. The Clerk shall close this file. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2017)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 SAN JOSE DIVISION 13 14 MARTHA JANE MCNEELY, Case No. 5:14-cv-03509-EJD Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 17 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, et al., 18 Defendants. 19 ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING GENERAL ELECTRIC’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Re: Dkt. Nos. 30, 34, 45, 49 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Martha McNeely, appearing pro se, brings a variety of claims arising from (1) her requests under the federal Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and Privacy Act (“PA”) and (2) injuries she allegedly suffered from childhood medical treatments. Defendants are a range of federal government agencies and employees (together, the “Federal Defendants”) and private entities. Case No.: 5:14-cv-03509-EJD ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING GENERAL ELECTRIC’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 Before the Court are the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss, General Electric 1 2 Company’s (“GE”) motion to dismiss, McNeely’s motion for summary judgment, and the Federal 3 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. McNeely’s motion will be denied and the other 4 motions will be granted. 5 I. BACKGROUND McNeely submitted two requests for records to the Department of Energy (“DOE”). First, 6 on June 21, 2012, McNeely submitted a PA request seeking copies of medical records from her 8 childhood on the Hanford nuclear reservation from 1947 through 1953. Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. 9 (“Defs.’ MSJ”) 2, Dkt. No. 49 (citing the declaration of DOE employee Dorothy Riele). The DOE 10 conducted a search and located an index card containing McNeely’s name and an “X-Ray Record 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 7 Sheet.” Id. at 4–5. The DOE provided these documents and a letter summarizing the results of the 12 search (with the names of third parties redacted). Id. at 5. McNeely appealed and her appeal was 13 denied. Id. Second, on February 2, 2014, McNeely submitted a FOIA request seeking records relating 14 15 to a study conducted from 1948 to 1952 where she alleges she “was a subject.” Id. The DOE 16 conducted a search and did not locate any responsive documents. Id. at 7. McNeely appealed and 17 her appeal was denied. McNeely then filed this action, bringing a variety of claims related to her 18 FOIA/PA requests, as well as claims relating to her childhood medical treatment. First Am. 19 Compl. (“FAC”), Dkt. No. 25. 20 II. LEGAL STANDARD 21 A. 22 “Summary judgment is proper where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the Summary Judgment 23 moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Samuels v. Holland American Line— 24 USA Inc., 656 F.3d 948, 952 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). The Court “must draw 25 all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Id. “The central issue is ‘whether the 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:14-cv-03509-EJD ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING GENERAL ELECTRIC’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 2 1 evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one- 2 sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 3 Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251–52 (1986)). Pro se pleadings and motions should be construed liberally. 4 Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). 5 B. 6 If an agency withholds information that is responsive to a FOIA request, it must prove that Summary Judgment in FOIA Cases 7 the information falls within a statutory exception to the disclosure requirement. See Dobronski v. 8 FCC, 17 F.3d 275, 277 (9th Cir. 1994). The agency may submit affidavits to satisfy its burden, but 9 “the government ‘may not rely upon conclusory and generalized allegations of exemptions.’ ” Kamman v. IRS, 56 F.3d 46, 48 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dep’t of 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 the Army, 611 F.2d 738, 742 (9th Cir.1979)). The agency’s “affidavits must contain ‘reasonably 12 detailed descriptions of the documents and allege facts sufficient to establish an exemption.’ ” Id. 13 (quoting Lewis v. IRS, 823 F.2d 375, 378 (9th Cir. 1987)). 14 C. 15 A motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of claims Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) 16 alleged in the complaint. Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 17 1995). Dismissal “is proper only where there is no cognizable legal theory or an absence of 18 sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 19 (9th Cir. 2001). The complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 20 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 21 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 22 III. 23 24 DISCUSSION A. Federal Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and McNeely’s Motion for Summary Judgment The Federal Defendants seek summary judgment on McNeely’s FOIA/PA claims, arguing 25 that (1) their search for responsive documents was adequate, (2) information about third parties 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:14-cv-03509-EJD ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING GENERAL ELECTRIC’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 3 1 was properly withheld, and (3) an individual, Poli A. Marmolejs, is not a proper defendant. First, the Court finds that the Federal Defendants’ search was adequate. “In demonstrating 2 3 the adequacy of the search, the agency may rely upon reasonably detailed, nonconclusory 4 affidavits submitted in good faith.” Zemansky v. U.S. E.P.A., 767 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1985) 5 (citing Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). Here, the 6 Federal Defendants have met their burden by providing detailed declarations from Amy Rothrock, 7 Dorothy Riehle, and Jonathan Dudley. Second, the Court finds that that Federal Defendants properly withheld information about 8 9 third parties. Under FOIA’s Exemption 6, the government may not disclose “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). The medical records at issue here are 12 precisely the type of information that Exemption 6 protects from disclosure. McNeely has not 13 demonstrated any public interest that disclosure would serve. See Lahr v. NTSB, 569 F.3d 964, 14 973 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that courts must “balance the privacy interested protected by the 15 exemptions against the public interest in government openness that would be served by 16 disclosure”). Third, the Court finds that Poli A. Marmolejos, an individual, is not a proper defendant. 17 18 See, e.g., Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581, 582 (5th Cir. 1987) (“Neither the Freedom of 19 Information Act nor the Privacy Act creates a cause of action for a suit against an individual 20 employee of a federal agency.”); accord Hewett v. Grabicki, 794 F.2d 1373, 1377 (9th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the federal defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be granted. For 21 22 the same reasons, McNeely’s motion for summary judgment will be denied.1 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 In her motion for summary judgment, McNeely argues that the Federal Defendants should have provided a Vaughn index with its response to her document requests. Dkt. No. 45 at 6. But McNeely has not established that the Federal Defendants were required to do so. See Fiduccia v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 185 F.3d 1035, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 1999) (“There is no statutory requirement of a Vaughn index or affidavit. . . . [O]ur precedents plainly hold that neither a Vaughn index nor Case No.: 5:14-cv-03509-EJD ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING GENERAL ELECTRIC’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 4 General Electric’s Motion to Dismiss 1 B. 2 McNeely alleges that General Electric Company (“GE”), and individuals associated with 3 it, are liable for injuries arising from the period when GE was a contractor at Kadlec Hospital. 4 FAC ¶¶ 3, 26–52. GE argues that McNeely’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata 5 because she has already litigated them in another case, In Re Hanford Nuclear Reservation 6 Litigation. Dkt. No. 34 at 3. 7 Res judicata applies when there is (1) an identity of claims (including claims arising from 8 the same events that could have been brought in the earlier action), (2) a final judgment on the 9 merits, and (3) privity between the parties. Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 1051–52 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court agrees that all three factors are satisfied here. First, McNeely asserts the same 12 claims here that she asserted in the earlier litigation. Second, the earlier litigation resulted in a final 13 judgment on the merits. See Dkt. No. 35 Ex. A (attaching the order granting summary judgment 14 against McNeely). Third, GE was also a defendant in the earlier litigation. 15 Accordingly, GE’s motion to dismiss will be granted. 16 C. 17 In addition to her FOIA/PA claims, McNeely appears to assert various tort claims against 18 government entities arising from medical treatment she received from 1948 to 1953. FAC ¶¶ 26– 19 45. McNeely must pursue her claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 20 1346(b), 2679(b)(1). Actions under the Federal Tort Claims Act must be instituted within two 21 years of accrual by filing a claim with the appropriate administrative agency. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). 22 McNeely brought her claims outside of the two-year limitations period. Accordingly, the Court 23 finds that McNeely’s claims (other than her FOIA/PA claims) are untimely and must be dismissed. Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 24 25 26 27 28 an affidavit is necessarily required in all cases.”) Case No.: 5:14-cv-03509-EJD ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING GENERAL ELECTRIC’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 5 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 The Court orders as follows: 3 1. The Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 30) is GRANTED. 4 2. GE’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 34) is GRANTED. 5 3. McNeely’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 45) is DENIED. 6 4. The Federal Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 49) is 7 8 GRANTED. The Clerk shall close this file. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 15, 2017 ______________________________________ EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:14-cv-03509-EJD ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING GENERAL ELECTRIC’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
