Thomas Wright v. Postmaster General o , 333 F. App'x 690 ( 2009 )

Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-30-2009
Thomas Wright v. Postmaster General o
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-4685
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"Thomas Wright v. Postmaster General o" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1109.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1109
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 08-4685
THOMAS J. WRIGHT,
Appellant
v.
JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General of the US Postal Service
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 4-07-cv-02073)
District Judge: Honorable James F. McClure, Jr.
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 19, 2009
Before: SLOVITER, AMBRO and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed June 30, 2009)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Thomas J. Wright appeals the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor
of the Postmaster General of the United States in a suit Wright brought pursuant to the
Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privacy Act (“PA”), 5
U.S.C. § 552a. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
Wright is an employee of the Postal Service at the Post Office in Coudersport,
Pennsylvania. In March 2007, after learning that his official personnel file (OPF) had
been lost, Wright submitted a FOIA/PA request to the Postal Service for the return of his
OPF. Wright later amended his FOIA/PA request to add a request for a copy of his
“Form 6100A associated with [his] service,” which he believed to be “the form which
tracks all disclosures of [his] records.” (Supp. App. 38a.) The records custodian for the
Coudersport Post Office searched the vault where the records were located, searched the
file cabinets in his office, and called the former Postmaster (who retired in 2005) to
inquire into the file’s whereabouts. Despite a search which also included offices in
Wilkes-Barre, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis, the Postal Service was unable to
locate Wright’s OPF. As a result, Kathy Gill, a Human Resources Generalist,
reconstructed Wright’s OPF and provided him a copy on September 7, 2007. The Postal
Service did not provide Wright with copies of any 6100 forms, claiming that the
Postmaster did not use form 6100 when sending OPFs to internal departments.
The Postal Service entered a Final Agency Decision on Wright’s FOIA/PA claims
on October 19, 2007. Wright filed suit in the District Court on November 13, 2007,
requesting that the Postmaster produce his original OPF. On June 19, 2008, Wright’s
original OPF was located in a safe in the Coudersport office. The Postmaster gave
Wright an opportunity to review the file the same day that he found it. The Postal Service
2
moved for summary judgment, arguing that the search was ultimately successful and that
no 6100 forms could be located, despite an extensive search. The District Court granted
the motion and dismissed the case. Wright filed a motion for reconsideration which the
District Court also denied. Wright then filed a timely notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The government argues that we
should employ the two-step standard of review we utilize in FOIA cases when a district
court grants summary judgment.1 It also correctly states that because Wright requested
his own personnel file, the PA’s provisions governing employees’ right to access their
own records control in this case. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(1). Under the PA, we review a
district court’s grant of summary judgment using the traditional standard: viewing the
facts in the light most favorable to Wright, whether there exist any disputed issue of
material fact and whether the ,Postmaster is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Cuccaro v. Sec’y of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 357 (3d Cir. 1985).2
The test under the FOIA and the PA is whether the agency conducted a reasonable
search for responsive records. Abdelfattah v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 488
1
Under this two-tiered review we first “decide whether the district court had an
adequate factual basis for its determination.” McDonnell v. United States, 4 F.3d 1227,
1242 (3d Cir. 1993). If the district court had an adequate factual basis for its decision, we
then ask whether that determination was clearly erroneous. Id.
2
We note that the District Court analyzed Wright’s claim under the FOIA and not
under the PA. Any error in this regard is harmless since the standard for whether a search
for records was adequate is identical under FOIA and the PA. See Lane v. Dep’t of
Interior, 523 F.3d 1128 1139 n.9 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Hill v. United States Air Force,
795 F.2d 1067, 1069 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (per curiam)).
3
F.3d 178, 182 (3d Cir. 2007) (per curiam). “To demonstrate the adequacy of its search,
the agency should provide a reasonably detailed affidavit, setting forth the search terms
and the type of search performed, and averring that all files likely to contain responsive
materials . . . were searched.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, the District Court’s conclusions, that the Postal Service did not withhold any
documents from Wright and that the Postal Service’s search was reasonable are not
erroneous as a matter of law. Specifically, the Postal Service provided the affidavits of
three employees who were involved in the search for the OPF. The affidavits detailed the
thorough, and ultimately successful, search undertaken for Wright’s OPF. The affidavits
also indicate that the Postal Service does not use form 6100.
Wright argues that the Postal Service refused to acknowledge his request for a
disclosure accounting form or “equivalent accounting” of who accessed his OPF and for
what purpose. However, the letters from the Postal Service demonstrate that it
acknowledged his request for the 6100 forms. (Supp. App. 44a.) As for “equivalent
accounting” forms, the affidavits state that the Postal Service does not keep a detailed
record of who accesses an employee’s OPF. Therefore, because Wright received all
available information he sought, and the Postal Service conducted an adequate search, the
District Court did not err in granting the Postal Service’s motion for summary judgment.
See Citizens Comm’n on Human Rights v. Food and Drug Admin., 45 F.3d 1325, 1328
(9th Cir. 1995) (“[T]he issue to be resolved is not whether there might exist any other
4
documents possibly responsive to the request, but rather whether the search for those
documents was adequate.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor the Postmaster General.
5