Steven Smith v. U.S. Department of Transportation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-35063

D.C. No. 6:16-cv-01875-TC

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Steven Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action arising out of his requests for
records from the Department of Transportation (“DOT”). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S.

*
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

APR 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-35063
Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for the DOT because
Smith failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the DOT did
not “conduct[] a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.”
Hamdan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 797 F.3d 759, 770 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted); id. at 770-71 (requirements for demonstrating
adequacy of search for documents in response to a FOIA request).
The district court did not err by denying in part Smith’s motion for partial
summary judgment. Although the DOT’s failure to respond to Smith’s FOIA
requests within the statutory time limits meant that Smith was deemed to have
exhausted his administrative remedies, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i) (a party
making a FOIA request “shall be deemed to have exhausted his administrative
remedies with respect to such request if the agency fails to comply with the
applicable time limit provisions”), Smith provided no basis for any relief outside of
that provided by the FOIA statute.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith’s motions for
discovery because the discovery sought was not within the scope of the limited
discovery permitted in FOIA actions. See Lane v. Dep’t of Interior, 523 F.3d
1128, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review and explaining
limitations on discovery in FOIA actions).

3 19-35063
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith’s motion for
costs without prejudice to refiling the motion after the resolution of the instant
appeal. See Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting
forth standard of review and noting a district court’s “considerable latitude in
managing the parties’ motion practice”).
Smith’s “motion re trial court motion for costs” is denied without prejudice
to refiling in the district court.
AFFIRMED.