Avinash B. Kulkarni v. United States Department of State

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AVINASH B. KULKARNI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
STATE,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-55132
D.C. No. 8:12-cv-00980-JLS-AN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Avinash B. Kulkarni appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action arising out of his
request for documents relating to his son’s passport application. We have
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-55132
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Animal Legal Def. Fund
v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Kulkarni
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant did not
establish that the withheld documents were exempt from disclosure under
Exemption 6 of FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) (explaining that FOIA does “not
apply to . . . personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”); Cameranesi
v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 856 F.3d 626, 637-39 (9th Cir. 2017) (in determining
whether Exemption 6 applies, courts first “evaluate the personal privacy interest at
stake to ensure that disclosure implicates a personal privacy interest that is
nontrivial or more than de minimis,” and then balance any such privacy interest
with the “public interest in disclosure” (citation, internal quotation marks, and
alternations omitted)). To the extent that Kulkarni challenges the sufficiency of the
search for documents, we reject Kulkarni’s challenge as unsupported by the record.
See Hamdan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 797 F.3d 759, 770-71 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting
forth requirements for demonstrating adequacy of search for documents).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-55132
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kulkarni’s motion
for sanctions because Kulkarni failed to identify any conduct warranting sanctions.
See Lahiri v. Universal Music & Video Distrib. Corp., 606 F.3d 1216, 1218 (9th
Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review).
We reject as meritless Kulkarni’s contention that the district court
committed legal error in not addressing his challenge to the then-operative FOIA
regulations.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Kulkarni’s motion to review and enjoin (Docket Entry No. 29) and motion
for sanctions (Docket Entry No. 32) are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --