Professional Documents
Culture Documents
VERN McKINLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 1:09-cv-1263-ESH
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION and
defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) moves to sever the claims
asserted against it from the claims asserted against defendant Board of Governors of the
STATEMENT OF FACTS
under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, to the FDIC, “seeking
certain records related to the approval of the Wachovia Bank transaction.” Complaint
(Dkt. 1) at ¶ 16. In discussions with FDIC personnel, Mr. McKinley was informed that
material responsive to his request included the minutes of a September 29, 2008 meeting
of the FDIC Board of Directors concerning the purchase of Wachovia Bank by Citigroup,
Inc. Complaint (Dkt. 1) at ¶ 23. On January 13, 2009, the FDIC denied Mr. McKinley’s
request, stating that the Board meeting had been closed to the public under the
1
Case 1:09-cv-01263-ESH Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 2 of 7
Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552b, and the minutes of that meeting were
exempt from disclosure under applicable exemptions.1 Complaint (Dkt. 1) at ¶ 24; FDIC
Answer (Dkt. 6) at ¶ 24. On January 28, 2009, Mr. McKinley filed an administrative
appeal of the FDIC’s decision. The FDIC responded on February 17, 2009, by providing
a redacted copy of the Board meeting minutes, and by stating that the redacted portions
were exempt from disclosure. Complaint (Dkt. 1) at ¶ 26. Subsequently, the FDIC
provided Mr. McKinley with a redacted memorandum which had been presented to the
FDIC Board of Directors for discussion at the closed meeting. The FDIC explained that
the redacted portions of the memorandum were exempt from disclosure under certain
FOIA exemptions.
A month after Mr. McKinley’s FOIA request to the FDIC concerning the
FOIA request to the FRB seeking “certain records related to the approval of the Bear
Stearns transaction.” Complaint (Dkt. 1) at ¶ 16. On January 16, 2009, the FRB staff
sent a letter to Mr. McKinley to extend their response date. In May, 2009, Mr. McKinley
contacted the FRB and was given an anticipated response date of early June. On June 11,
FRB staff sent another letter to Mr. McKinley. The FRB ultimately responded to Mr.
McKinley’s FOIA request on August 11, 2009. Complaint (Dkt. 1) at ¶¶ 30-32; FRB
Answer (Dkt. 9) at ¶¶ 30-33. The Joint Status Report of Mr. McKinley and the FRB
indicates that the FRB has not yet responded in full to Mr. McKinley’s FOIA request and
is still reviewing records. FRB Joint Status Report (Dkt. 12) at ¶¶ 2-3.
1
Pursuant to subsection (k) of the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552b(k), where a FOIA request is made for
transcripts, recordings, or minutes of closed meetings, the Sunshine Act exemptions apply rather than the
FOIA exemptions.
2
Case 1:09-cv-01263-ESH Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 3 of 7
Under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, multiple defendants may
(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the
alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the
action.
requirements are not satisfied. Montgomery v STG International, 532 F. Supp.2d 29, 35
(D.D.C. 2008); Disparte v. Corporate Executive Board, 223 F.R.D. 7, 12 (D.D.C. 2004).
The remedy for misjoinder is found in Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, which provides in relevant part:
“On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.
The court may also sever any claim against a party.” M.K. v. Tenet, 216 F.R.D. 133, 137
(D.D.C. 2002); Disparte, 223 F.R.D. at 12. The determination of a motion to sever is
within the discretion of the trial court. M.K. v. Tenet, 216 F.R.D. at 137; Disparte, 223
F.R.D. at 12. If parties or claims appear to be improperly joined, the trial court may order
such claims severed and proceeded with separately. Disparte, 223 F.R.D. at 12; Lucas v.
In this case, Mr. McKinley’s joinder of his claims against the FDIC and his claims
against the FRB fails to meet either prong of the Rule 20 test, and accordingly this action
First, The claim asserted against the FDIC does not arise “out of the same
against the FRB. From the FDIC, Mr. McKinley requested documents relating to “the
3
Case 1:09-cv-01263-ESH Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 4 of 7
Wachovia Bank transaction,” while he asked the FRB to produce documents relating to
“the Bears Stearns transaction,” a matter totally unrelated to the Wachovia Bank
transaction. Further, Mr. McKinley made two separate FOIA requests to two separate
agencies on two separate dates a month apart. The responses of the FDIC and the FRB to
Mr. McKinley’s requests were entirely different and totally unconnected to each other.
There is no logical relationship between the claims against the FDIC and the claims
against the FRB. See Montgomery, 532 F. Supp.2d at 35; M.K. v. Tenet, 216 F.R.D. at
142.
action. As discussed above, the claims here involve two separate FOIA requests to two
separate agencies about two separate transactions on two separate occasions with two
separate outcomes. While Mr. McKinley is proceeding against both agencies under the
same statute, any questions of law arising here are inextricably tied to the actions of each
particular agency in dealing with its own documents. Thus, the question of whether the
FDIC complied with FOIA in withholding material from the Board minutes and the
memorandum is entirely separate from the question whether the FRB complied with
FOIA in whatever response it has made or will make. There are no commonalities of law
or fact between the defendants in this case. See Lucas, 2005 WL 607923 *3 (“claims in
[this case] are tied together by nothing more than the Agency’s failure to act on plaintiffs’
Montgomery, 532 F. Supp.2d at 35. In this case, leaving these disparate claims and
defendants in the same action will promote inconvenience and delay. Mr. McKinley’s
4
Case 1:09-cv-01263-ESH Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 5 of 7
claim against the FDIC is narrow, involving only the minutes of the September 29, 2008
meeting of the Board of Directors and the related memorandum. The FDIC is prepared to
move promptly for summary judgment. However, with regard to Mr. McKinley’s claims
against the FRB, document production is still in progress and the actual scope of the
material at issue will necessarily require more time to identify. As the two recently filed
status reports (Dkt. 11 and 12) make clear, the claims against the FDIC and the claims
against the FRB are proceeding on two separate procedural tracks, with the agreement of
Mr. McKinley. In this case, severing the claims would promote convenience and
expedite resolution.
5
Case 1:09-cv-01263-ESH Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 6 of 7
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, all claims asserted in this action against the FDIC should
be severed from the claims asserted against the FRB and proceed separately. A proposed
order is attached.
Pursuant to the Rules of this Court, LCivR7(m), counsel for the FDIC has
discussed this motion with counsel for the other parties. Counsel for the FRB does not
Respectfully submitted,
COLLEEN J. BOLES
Assistant General Counsel
6
Case 1:09-cv-01263-ESH Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 16, 2009, the foregoing MOTION TO SEVER
Vern McKinley
20745 Ashburn Station Place
Ashburn, VA 20147
/s/ Daniel H. Kurtenbach
Daniel H. Kurtenbach
D.C. Bar No. 426590
Counsel
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
3501 Fairfax Drive, Room VS-D7026
Arlington, VA 22226
703-562-2465
7
Case 1:09-cv-01263-ESH Document 13-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 1 of 1
VERN McKINLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 1:09-cv-1263-ESH
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION and
Defendants.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
It appearing to the Court that the claims against defendant Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC) set forth in the Complaint are improperly joined with the claims against
defendant Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), it is hereby ORDERED
that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, the FDIC’s Motion to Sever is GRANTED. This action shall
be severed into an action against defendant FDIC and a separate action against defendant FRB.
Each matter shall proceed under the original Complaint as of the original filing date,
disregarding those pleadings and orders and portions thereof that are applicable only to the other
defendant. The Clerk shall take all appropriate actions to carry out this Order.
____________________________________
United States District Judge