Kaminsky v. National Aeronautics & Space Administration

402 F. App'x 617
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedDecember 6, 2010
Docket10-1016-cv
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 402 F. App'x 617 (Kaminsky v. National Aeronautics & Space Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kaminsky v. National Aeronautics & Space Administration, 402 F. App'x 617 (2d Cir. 2010).

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Barry Kaminsky, pro se, appeals from an award of summary judgment in favor of defendant the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on plaintiffs claims under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

This Court reviews de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment under FOIA. National Council of La Raza v. Dep’t of Justice, 411 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir.2005). “In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a FOIA case, the defending agency has the burden of showing that its search was adequate....” Carney v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir.1994). “Affidavits or declarations supplying facts indicating that the agency has conducted a thorough search ... are sufficient to sustain the agency’s burden,” and we accord such affidavits a “presumption of good faith.” Id. (footnote omitted). This presumption “cannot be rebutted by purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other docu *618 ments.” Grand Cent. P’ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 489 (2d Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the judgment below for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned decision. We have considered Kaminsky’s arguments on appeal and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, the January 19, 2010 judgment is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE OF SPOKANE v. Spokane
261 P.3d 119 (Washington Supreme Court, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
402 F. App'x 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaminsky-v-national-aeronautics-space-administration-ca2-2010.