National Public Radio, Inc. v. U.S. Central Command

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, INC. and Case No. 21-cv-1079-MMA (AHG) GRAHAM SMITH, 12 NOTICE AND ORDER PROVIDING Plaintiffs, 13 TENTATIVE RULINGS RE: v. CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 14 JUDGMENT U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND and U.S. 15 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, [Doc. Nos. 23, 32] 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On December 12, 2022, the parties in this action will appear before the Court for a 20 hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, see Doc. No. 23, and Plaintiffs’ 21 cross-motion for summary judgment, see Doc. No. 32. In anticipation of the hearing, the 22 Court issues the following tentative rulings: 23 1. The Court tentatively GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 24 and DENIES Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment. 25 2. The Court tentatively GRANTS summary judgment in Defendants’ favor 26 and DENIES Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment as to the adequacy of 27 Defendants’ search. Although Defendants did not search any additional locations 28 proposed by Plaintiffs, the Court tentatively finds that Defendants met their burden to 1 || follow all “leads” and clearly explained their decisions about the scope of their search in 2 || the declarations submitted by Edgardo M. Guzman. See Doc. No. 23-2 at 4-13; 3 || Campbell v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 164 F.3d 20, 28 (D.C. Cir. 1998). 4 3. The Court tentatively DENIES Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary 5 || judgment as to their request to enter declaratory judgment that Defendants “violated 6 || FOIA’s requirement to timely respond to [Plaintiffs’] requests.” Doc. No. 32 at 24. 7 || Based on the record, the Court tentatively finds that Defendants were untimely in 8 responding to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request. Notwithstanding Defendants’ delay, the Court 9 || tentatively finds that issuing a declaratory judgment against Defendants would neither 10 || ‘‘clarify and settle the legal relations at issue [nor] . . . afford relief from the uncertainty 11 controversy giving rise to the proceedings.” See Nat’l Resources Def. Council v. 12 || EPA, 966 F.2d 1292, 1299 (9th Cir. 1992). 13 As these rulings are tentative, the Court looks forward to the oral arguments of 14 || counsel. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: December 5, 2022 17 With -f hipltr 18 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28