This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
Freedom of Information Act

Dennis M. Buckovetz v. The Department of the Navy

Published: Jul. 14, 2023 | Result Date: Mar. 8, 2023 | Filing Date: Apr. 13, 2021 |

Case number: 3:21-cv-00640-WQH-KSC Summary Judgment –  Defense

Court

USDC Southern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Travis J. Anderson
(Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP)

Sean Mann-O'Halloran
(Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP)


Defendant

Janet A. Cabral
(Office of the U.S. Attorney)


Facts

Dennis Buckovetz brought an action against the Department of the Navy.

On December 18, 2014, Buckovetz was copied on an email chain between Major General James W. Bierman and others regarding the sale of commemorative coins that caused Buckovetz concern because he understood that the sales diverted revenue from the Marine Corps Community Services.

Buckovetz requested the Department of the Navy to produce emails, pursuant to the Freedom Information Act (FOIA), concerning the alleged scheme by officers at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) to sell commemorative coins and other Marine Corps memorabilia.

MCRD sent Buckovetz a letter responding to the FOIA request and providing 384 responsive emails. The production did not contain the email chain on which Buckovetz had been copied on December 18.

Marine Corps Headquarters responded to the portion of Buckovetz's FOIA request that had been referred from MCRD. In its production, Marine Corps Headquarters produced five additional responsive emails, including the chain of four emails on which Buckovetz had been copied on December 18.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant violated FOIA by deliberately concealing or destroying responsive emails upon receipt of the FOIA request and before production. Plaintiff argued that careful scrutiny demonstrated that deletion of the emails was the only plausible reason why MCRD failed to produce the five missing emails. Plaintiff contended additional discovery was necessary to determine whether the deletion of the emails was intentional. Plaintiff contended that MCRD's production of other emails did not demonstrate a lack of intent because the December 18 emails were uniquely inculpatory.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions and argued that it conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all documents responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request.

Result

Summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant.


#141006

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390