UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) PERIOPERATIVE SERVICES ) AND LOGISTICS, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 20-0095 (ABJ) ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ) VETERANS AFFAIRS, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Perioperative Services and Logistics, LLC brought this action on January 14, 2021 under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., seeking to compel defendant, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), to release certain records. See Compl. [Dkt. # 1] ¶ 7. Pending before the Court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. # 11-1] (“Mot.”); see also Def.’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [Dkt. # 11-2] (“SOF”). The motion is supported by a declaration detailing the content of the responsive materials and the justification for the agency’s invocation of FOIA Exemption 6 to withhold them in full. See Decl. of Brian P. Tierney [Dkt. # 20] (ex parte) (SEALED) (“Tierney Decl.”). The Court authorized the filing of the declaration under seal and ex parte based on the government’s representation that the document also implicated the privacy concerns animating defendant’s decision to withhold the records. See Min. Order (Sept. 15, 2021). Plaintiff opposes the motion for summary judgment, and it seeks reconsideration of the decision to allow the declaration to be submitted under seal and ex parte. See Pl.’s Mot. for Recons. of 1 Order Sealing Tierney Decl. [Dkt. # 13] (“Pl.’s Mot.”); Ex. 1 to Pl.’s Mot, Mem. of P. & A. in Opp. to Mot. and in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. [Dkt. # 13-1] (“Opp.”); see also Ex. 2 to Pl.’s Mot., Pl.’s Statement of Disputed Facts [Dkt. # 13-2] (“Pl.’s Disputed SOF”). Because the Court concludes, based on its consideration of the entire record, including the ex parte declaration, that the responsive records were properly withheld under FOIA Exemption 6, defendant’s motion will be GRANTED, and the motion for reconsideration will be DENIED. BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a provider of medical implant materials and other medical devices and supplies to customers, including defendant. Compl. ¶ 5. In late 2018, a third party submitted a complaint to defendant regarding plaintiff’s business practices. Compl. ¶ 6. Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request on February 6, 2019, asking for: [A] copy of the e-mail document from the unaffiliated implant center that contains the claimant’s statement, to include the name of the claimant’s organization and associated parties identified in the email . . . any further communication that was had with the unaffiliated implant center, if written communication, via email was not the form of communication . . . a summary of conversations with the unaffiliated implant center, [which] should include, [the] name of the organizations, name of parties from the claimant and the [VA], date, time and any specific details concerning Perioperative Services and Logistics. Pl.’s FOIA Request, Ex. 1 to Compl. [Dkt. # 1-1] (“FOIA Request”); Compl. ¶ 7; SOF ¶¶ 4–5. In …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals