UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) HENRY G. HEFFERNAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 15-2194 (RBW) ALEX AZAR, in his official capacity as ) Secretary of the United States Department ) of Health and Human Services, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION The plaintiff, Henry G. Heffernan, initiated this civil action against the defendant, Alex Azar, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), alleging multiple violations of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2018). See generally Complaint (“Compl.”). Currently pending before the Court are (1) the Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (“Def.’s Mot.”) and (2) the Plaintiff’s Opposition to Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.’s Mot.”). Upon careful consideration of the parties’ submissions,1 the Court concludes for 1 In addition to the filings already identified, the Court considered the following submissions in rendering its decision: (1) the Plaintiff’s Opposition to Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.’s 1st Mot.”); (2) the Defendant’s Notice of Filing (“Def.’s Not.”); (3) the Defendant’s Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue (“Def.’s Facts”); (4) the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (“Def.’s Mem.”); (5) the Supplemental Declaration of Gorka Garcia-Malene (Oct. 31, 2018) (“1st Garcia-Malene Decl.”); (6) the Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.’s Mem.”); (7) the Plaintiff’s Response to Agency’s Statement of Facts (“Pl.’s Resp.”); (8) the Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts (“Pl.’s Facts”); (9) the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and in Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (“Def.’s Opp’n”); (10) the Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute (“Def.’s Resp.”); (11) the Supplemental Declaration of Gorka Garcia-Malene (Feb. 27, 2019) (“2d Garcia-Malene Decl.”); and (12) the Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.’s Reply”). the following reasons that it must grant the defendant’s renewed motion for summary judgment and deny the plaintiff’s renewed cross-motion for summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND The Court previously set forth the factual background of this case in its June 27, 2018 Memorandum Opinion, see Heffernan v. Azar, 317 F. Supp. 3d 94, 101–03 (D.D.C. 2018) (Walton, J.), and therefore will not reiterate it again here. The Court will, however, set forth the procedural background of this case, which is pertinent to the resolution of the pending motions. The parties previously filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Complaint. See id. at 101. On June 27, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied without prejudice in part the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment. See id. at 134. Relevant to the pending motions, the Court denied without prejudice the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals