Patty Lovaas v. Bureau of Land Management

Ninth Circuit

Patty Lovaas v. Bureau of Land Management

393 F. App'x 527

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 31, 2010

Docket08-36068

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 393 F. App'x 527 (Patty Lovaas v. Bureau of Land Management) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Patty Lovaas v. Bureau of Land Management, 393 F. App'x 527 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Patty Lovaas and Elk Horn Hot Springs, Inc. (collectively, “Lovaas”) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”), the United States Department of the Interior, and various federal officials in plaintiffs’ action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). We affirm.

Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Lovaas, we hold that the BLM’s search was adequate under FOIA. Citizens Comm’n on Human Rights v. Food & Drug Admin., 45 F.3d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir.1995). The BLM’s affidavits were “reasonably detailed, nonconclusory ... [and] submitted in good faith.” Zemansky v. E.P.A., 767 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir.1985) (internal citation omitted). The district court’s decision to conduct in camera review has no bearing on the adequacy of the search itself. In camera review is conducted to determine the applicability of exemptions to documents already produced. See Lewis v. I.R.S., 823 F.2d 375, 378 (9th Cir.1987). The production of supplemental documents by the BLM does not indicate that the BLM’s search was inadequate, particularly since the BLM explained why the documents were not found initially. See Lane v. Dep’t of Interior, 523 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir.2008).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting summary judgment without further discovery. Lane, 523 F.3d at 1134-35; see also Brae Transp., Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 790 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir.1986).

Lovaas also requests attorney’s fees. However, she failed to file a motion for attorney’s fees in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2). The request is therefore waived. See In re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig., 496 F.3d 962, 972-73 (9th Cir.2007); Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 889-90 (9th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Patty Lovaas and Elk Horn Hot Springs, Inc. (collectively, “Lovaas”) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”), the United States Department of the Interior, and various federal officials in plaintiffs’ action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). We affirm.

Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Lovaas, we hold that the BLM’s search was adequate under FOIA. Citizens Comm’n on Human Rights v. Food & Drug Admin., 45 F.3d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir.1995). The BLM’s affidavits were “reasonably detailed, nonconclusory ... [and] submitted in good faith.” Zemansky v. E.P.A., 767 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir.1985) (internal citation omitted). The district court’s decision to conduct in camera review has no bearing on the adequacy of the search itself. In camera review is conducted to determine the applicability of exemptions to documents already produced. See Lewis v. I.R.S., 823 F.2d 375, 378 (9th Cir.1987). The production of supplemental documents by the BLM does not indicate that the BLM’s search was inadequate, particularly since the BLM explained why the documents were not found initially. See Lane v. Dep’t of Interior, 523 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir.2008).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting summary judgment without further discovery. Lane, 523 F.3d at 1134-35; see also Brae Transp., Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 790 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir.1986).

Lovaas also requests attorney’s fees. However, she failed to file a motion for attorney’s fees in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2). The request is therefore waived. See In re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig., 496 F.3d 962, 972-73 (9th Cir.2007); Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 889-90 (9th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 F. App'x 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patty-lovaas-v-bureau-of-land-management-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack