STEVE GUPTA VS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-22/04/2008

STEVE GUPTA v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Citation:  Gupta v. U.S., 277 F. App’x 691 (9th Cir. 2008)

Gupta v. U.S.

OpinionOpinion A judge's written explanation of a decision of the court. In an appeal, multiple opinions may be written. The court’s ruling comes from a majority of judges and forms the majority opinion. A dissenting opinion disagrees with the majority because of the reasoning and/or the principles of law on which the decision is based. A concurring opinion agrees with the end result of the court but offers further comment possibly because they disagree with how the court reached its conclusion.

No. 06-56818.

Submitted April 22, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed May 6, 2008.

Steve Gupta, Glendale, CA, pro se.

Alarice M. Medrano, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-03782-ABC.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Steve Gupta, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgmentSummary judgment In an application for summary judgment, the claimant has to show that he has a prima facie case for summary judgment, following which the burden shifts to the defendant to show that there is a fair or reasonable probability that he has a real or bona fide defence. It will only be granted if the court is satisfied that all the defences raised by the defendant to resist the application are “wholly unsustainable”.  Leave to defend would ordinarily be granted where triable issues or questions are militating in favour of a full evaluation of the evidence and arguments. However, mere assertions by a defendant which are equivocal, or lacking in precision, or are inconsistent with undisputed contemporary documents or other statements, or are inherently improbable would not be sufficient for a court to grant leave to defend. in favor of defendants in his action under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq. (“FOIA”), seeking documents about Rahul Gandhi’s alleged detention at Logan Airport in September 2001. We have jurisdictionJurisdiction Authority by which courts receive and decide cases. Limited Jurisdiction: the authority over only particular types of cases, or cases under a prescribed amount in controversy, or seeking only certain types of relief, the District Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Original Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction of the first court to hear a case. under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment regarding the applicability of a FOIA exemption. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 189 F.3d 1034, 1036-37 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Exemption 7(C) applies because disclosure of the requested documents could reasonably be expected to constitute an invasion of Gandhi’s privacy, and Gupta failed to demonstrate any government impropriety that would support the public interest in the release of the documents. See U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 776, 109 S.Ct. 1468, 103 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989) (explaining that whether Exemption 7(C) applies requires “balancing” the personal privacy that could reasonably be expected to be invaded by the production of the records against the public purpose served by release); see also Nat’l Archives and Records Admin, v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 174, 124 S.Ct. 1570, 158 L.Ed.2d 319 (2004) (concluding that “where there is a privacy interest protected by Exemption 7(C) . . . the requester must provide evidenceEvidence All the means by which a matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted for investigation, is established or disproved. Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Adhiniyam 2023 that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that the alleged Government impropriety might have occurred.”).

Title 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) exempts from disclosure law enforcement records or information that “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

Gupta’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.