MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
G.
MICHAEL HARVEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
In this
long-running case under the Freedom of Information Act
(“FOIA”), the undersigned filed a Report and
Recommendation on Defendants' motion for summary judgment
on April 4, 2019, that recommended granting the motion in
large part and denying it on two very narrow grounds:
Defendants had not shown that certain requested personnel
records were not in its custody or control and they had not
adequately established that certain identificatory numbers in
a spreadsheet of Medicare claims that it had produced were
properly redacted under Exemption 6. ECF No. 184 at 14-16,
23-26. Judge Sullivan adopted that Report and Recommendation
on June 13, 2019, and set a due date for the filing of a
further motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 186. Defendants
timely filed that motion on July 29, 2019. ECF No. 187.
Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se, filed on August 26,
2019-two days before her opposition to Defendants'
pending motion for summary judgment was due-a motion
requesting discovery as well as an extension of time to file
“objections” (by which she presumably means her
opposition to Defendants' summary judgment motion). ECF
No. 189. It is that motion of Plaintiff's that is
currently before the Court.
First,
Plaintiff, a prolific filer of non-meritorious requests, must
seek permission to seek permission before she files motions
in this case-a requirement of which she has been reminded
numerous times. See, e.g., Fleming v. Medicare
Freedom of Information Grp., No. 15-cv-1135, 2019 WL
24062814, at *1 (D.D.C. June 13, 2019) (noting that
“[b]ecause [Plaintiff] is a prolific filer, ” the
Court in September 2016 “required her to obtain
permission before making new filings in this case”);
Fleming v. Medicare Freedom of Information Grp., No.
15-cv-1135, 2018 WL 3549791, at *2 (D.D.C. July 24, 2018)
(“Plaintiff has been a prolific and duplicative filer,
which resulted in an order dated September 1, 2016, requiring
her to seek permission from the Court before filing motions
in this case . . . .”); Fleming v. Medicare Freedom
of Information Grp., No. 15-cv-1135, 2018 WL 8577960, at
*2 (D.D.C. July 24, 2018) (same); Fleming v. Medicare
Freedom of Info. Grp., 310 F.Supp.3d 50, 52 (D.D.C.
2018) (“On September 1, 2016, after Plaintiff had filed
nearly twenty motions in just over one year, the Honorable
Alan Kay, United States Magistrate Judge, ordered Plaintiff
to ‘refrain from filing any additional motions without
prior permission' from the Court.”); see
also ECF No. 147 at 1 (“[P]ursuant to an order
entered in this case on September 1, 2016, Plaintiff must
seek permission from the Court before filing motions in this
case.”). She has not done so here, so the motion
“may be denied on that basis alone.”
Fleming, 310 F.Supp.3d at 52.
Second,
this is Plaintiff's seventh motion seeking discovery in
this case. The previous six have all been denied. See
Fleming, 2018 WL 3549791, at *2 (“Plaintiff has
filed six motions for discovery or evidentiary hearings, all
of which were denied by the Court.” (citing ECF Nos. 4,
41, 58, 68, 88, 119)). “[B]ecause the Court has denied
nearly identical motions in the past, and Plaintiff asserts
no new factual allegations or legal arguments in
support” of her present motion for discovery, the
motion will also be denied. Id.
Third,
the request for discovery “will be denied because the
arguments she presents are not meritorious.”
Id. at *3. “[D]iscovery . . . is rarely
granted in FOIA cases and Plaintiff has not adequately shown
that Defendants have acted in bad faith such that granting
discovery would be justified here.” Id.
(citing Voinche v. FBI, 412 F.Supp.2d 60, 71-72
(D.D.C. 2006)). Moreover, the discovery she seeks-information
that “reasonably details the exact dollar amount of the
[Medicare] claims” that formed the basis for
Plaintiff's conviction for Medicare-related health care
fraud and related offenses, see, e.g.,
Fleming, 310 F.Supp. 3d at 51-has nothing to do with
the two tightly circumscribed issues still alive in the case,
which concern (1) whether Defendants have possession,
custody, or control over certain personnel records and (2)
the propriety of Defendants' invocation of Exemption 6
over certain identification numbers redacted from a
spreadsheet of Medicare claims Defendants provided to
Plaintiff in response to her FIOA requests.
CONCLUSION
For the
foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED
that Plaintiff's motion for discovery and an extension of
time (ECF No. 189) is DENIED as to the
request for discovery. It is further
ORDERED
that the motion is GRANTED to the extent
that it seeks an extension of time to file an opposition to
Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment. It is
further
ORDERED
that Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' motion for
summary judgment and/or cross motion for summary judgment
shall be filed on or before September 30,
2019. Plaintiff is directed to the notice included
in Defendants' motion regarding the requirements to
oppose a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 187 at 2;
see also Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir.
1992). It is further
ORDERED
that Defendants' reply in further support of their motion
for summary judgment and/or opposition to Plaintiffs cross
motion shall be filed on or before October 14,
2019. It is further
ORDERED
that Plaintiffs reply in further support of her cross motion,
if any, shall be filed on or before October 28,
2019.
Defendants
are reminded that, pursuant to an order entered on October
17, 2018, they must serve all submissions in this case, other
than authorized ex parte submissions, on Plaintiff
at her address of record by certified mail. ECF No. 173.
SO
...