Lawless v. SEC, No. 21-01637, 2023 WL 6795101 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2023) (Holcomb, J.)

Lawless v. SEC, No. 21-01637, 2023 WL 6795101 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2023) (Holcomb, J.)

Re:  Requests for records concerning plaintiff

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff’s motions for sanctions; denying plaintiff’s motions “to deem the statements of the SEC’s counsel of record . . . as unreliable;” denying plaintiff’s motions concerning defendant’s withholdings; granting defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  “[T]he Court finds no genuine dispute of material fact concerning the adequacy of the SEC’s search for the records that [plaintiff] requested.”  “It is undisputed that the SEC’s Office of Information Technology searched for potentially responsive documents using the keywords that [plaintiff] provided and that SEC staff then reviewed those documents for responsive records.”  “No matter how sincere, [plaintiff’s] disbelief does not constitute a credible challenge to the adequacy of the SEC’s search when he adduces no admissible evidence to contest the validity of the search methods or procedures.”
   
• Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege & Attorney Work-Product:  The court relates that “[i]n this instance, the SEC invokes both the attorney work-product privilege and the deliberative process privilege for emails authored by staff in its Division of Enforcement and Office of the Inspector General.”  “As described in its Vaughn index, the SEC averred that those documents included attorney work product, as well as pre-decisional deliberations on how to handle someone posing as an SEC staffer, how to respond to [plaintiff], and what to make of his whistleblower complaint and another non-party individual.”  “Those descriptions are supported by affidavits provided under penalty of perjury.”  “Having reviewed the documents in camera, the Court agrees with the SEC’s descriptions and attestations. Regarding [one FOIA request], many of the emails really did concern how to deal with someone impersonating an SEC staffer.”  “Those documents were properly withheld under Exemption 5 as a deliberative process privilege.”  “Additionally, the 21 pages withheld from [another FOIA request] were simply notes, taken by an SEC attorney, in anticipation of possible litigation at the time.”  “Since those notes qualify as attorney work product, they squarely fall within the ambit of Exemption 5.”
   
• Exemption 6; Exemption 7(C):  The court relates that “[t]he SEC also invokes Exemptions 6 and 7(C) for the purpose of redacting names, titles, telephone numbers, and email addresses of SEC staffers, as well as the personal information of a thirty party.”  “As described in the Vaugh[]n index, the redacted information pertains to SEC staff information and the personal information of a non-party in the context of an investigation.”  “Having reviewed the un[red]acted documents, the Court can confirm that the SEC’s description is accurate.”  “The Court is persuaded that a release of that information would create a ‘a palpable threat to privacy.’”  “[Plaintiff] conceded that point as well.”  “Turning to the second prong, the Court finds that releasing the personally identifiable information of SEC staffers and a non-party does not serve the public interest.”  “While [plaintiff] asserts that there are millions of victims involved in the bond fiasco, he does not explain how releasing the internal telephone numbers or email addresses of those SEC staffers who just so happened to be forwarded one [of] his emails does anything to advance knowledge about how the SEC investigated [the] Puerto Rican bond crisis.”  “Nor does [plaintiff] explain how the personal information of a non-party would serve that end, either.”  “Therefore, the Court concludes that the redactions are justified as a matter of law under Exemption 6.”
  
  “Lastly, although [plaintiff] disputes the merits of applying Exemption 7(C) to a single email thread, the issue is moot since the Exemption 6 applies.”