Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Natarajan Venkataram v. Office of Information Policy & Janice Galli Mcleod

May 25, 2011

NATARAJAN VENKATARAM, PLAINTIFF,
v.
OFFICE OF INFORMATION POLICY & JANICE GALLI MCLEOD, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jerome B. Simandle

OPINION

SIMANDLE, District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

In this case, Plaintiff seeks records from the United States Department of Justice pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. The matter is before the Court on Defendants' motion to dismiss or, as appropriate, grant Defendants summary judgment. [Docket Item 11.] The question before the Court is whether either of the exceptions to FOIA invoked by Defendants apply categorically to Plaintiff's request, such that Defendants may deny the entire request before searching for responsive documents.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Natarajan Venkataram, is an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and he is representing himself without counsel. He seeks records from the Department of Justice concerning an individual, D.V.S. Raju, who was his co-defendant in a criminal case, United States v. Venkataram, 06-cr-102 (RPP) (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2008).

According to the superceding indictment in that criminal case, in the years following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the New York City Office of the Medical Examiner awarded millions of dollars in contracts to software companies for work related to the task of identifying victims of the attacks through the forensic analysis of body parts and other evidence collected at the World Trade Center site, and some of this money was reimbursed by the federal government. [Docket Item 24 ¶2, 06-cr-102 (RPP) (S.D.N.Y.).] Venkataram was a city official in charge of the Office of the Medical Examiner's acquisition of software, and D.V.S. Raju was the Chairman and Managing Director of an India-based software and programming company. The two men, among others, were charged with a conspiracy involving the fraudulent awarding of software contracts, as well as embezzlement, theft, and other offenses related to the conspiracy. The indictment states that the conspirators wired approximately $6 million of New York City's funds to D.V.S. Raju on the basis of fraudulent invoices. [Id. ¶ 13h.] D.V.S. Raju was subsequently dismissed from the indictment by the federal prosecutors, and Plaintiff entered a guilty plea. Plaintiff maintains that Raju's dismissal from the case is suspicious, and wants to learn about the circumstances surrounding it.*fn1 Plaintiff filed a request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552,*fn2 requesting the following documents:

a. All documents, papers pertaining to Mr. D.V.S. Raju, co-defendant in the criminal case of U.S. v. Venkataram, Case # 06-CR-102(RPP).

b. All justifications, explanations regarding the Nolle-Prosequi given to Mr. D.V.S. Raju.

(Stearns Dec. Ex-A.) The ostensible public interest in these documents is learning why the Department of Justice did not seek to recover the millions of dollars alleged to be wrongfully in Raju's possession, and whether the decision not to prosecute Raju was somehow improper.

The Department of Justice responded to Plaintiff's request, informing him that it is their policy not to confirm or deny that records concerning living third parties exist, that disclosure of such records would violate the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a), and that the records are exempt from release under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). (Stearns Decl. Ex-B.) Plaintiff appealed that denial using the agency's internal appeals process. The initial decision was affirmed, relying solely on the exceptions at 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), which are the exceptions pressed by Defendants on this motion. Exception 6 applies to "personnel and medical files and similar files when the disclosure of such information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). Exception 7(C) applies to "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes . . . to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information . . . could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C).*fn3

In the present suit, Plaintiff argues that Exceptions 6 and 7(C) do not apply to the records he seeks, because he does not seek "personnel" records, and because the information he seeks could not reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Defendants argue that any responsive document would necessarily damage Mr. Raju's privacy for unwarranted reasons, and therefore that Plaintiff's entire request may be categorically denied.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.