2012-05-21 - ms sdms - exhibits to mdec response to motion for sanctions

7/31/2019 2012-05-21 - MS SDMS - EXHIBITS to MDEC Response to Motion for Sanctions

1/26

Exhibit 1

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA Document 30-1 Filed 05/21/12 Page 1 of 4


2/26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

ORLY TAITZ, )

)Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

) Civil Action No. 11-402 (RCL)

MICHAEL ASTRUE, )

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL )

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

ORDER

Before the Court are several pending motions, all of which will be denied for the reasons

set forth below.

Plaintiffs Motion [12] to Compel Preparation of a Vaughn Index requests an order

requiring defendant to provide an itemized inventory of every agency record responsive to

plaintiffs FOIA request that defendant asserts is exempt from disclosure. As discussed in the

Courts Memorandum Opinion issued this date, the Social Security Administration (SSA)

withheld only one responsive document as exempt from disclosure. As there is no need for a

Vaughn Index in this case, plaintiffs Motion [12] to Compel is DENIED.

Plaintiffs Motion [18] to Strike Defendants Answer asserts that defendant filed his

answer to her amended complaint twenty days late. She thus asks the Court to strike the answer

and enter a default judgment in her favor. Plaintiffs Motion [20] for Default Judgment, like her

Motion to Strike, also seeks a default judgment on the basis of defendants late filing. To serve

the United States, a plaintiff must serve a copy of the summons and complaint on the United

States attorney for the district where the action is brought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1)(A)(i). Under

Case 1:11-cv-00402-RCL Document 35 Filed 08/30/11 Page 1 of 3Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA Document 30-1 Filed 05/21/12 Page 2 of 4


3/26

2

the FOIA statute, a defendant shall serve an answer or otherwise plead to any complaint . . .

within thirty days of service upon the defendant of the pleading in which such complaint is

made. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(C). Plaintiff served her first amended complaint and summons on

the U.S. Attorney on April 3, 2011 [8]. Thus, defendants answer was due within thirty days of

April 3, 2011. Because defendant did not file his answer until May 23, 2011, defendant is in

default. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide, however, that a default judgment may be

entered against the United States, its officers, or its agencies only if the claimant establishes a

claim or right to relief by evidence that satisfies the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(d) (emphasis

added). For the reasons set forth in the Courts Memorandum Opinion issued this date, the Court

finds that plaintiff has failed to establish a claim or right to relief, and thus is not entitled a

default judgment in this case.

Furthermore, [d]efault judgments are not favored by modern courts, particularly where

such judgments are unwarranted by the facts. Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831, 834 (D.C. Cir.

1980). This Circuit has explained that default judgments are normally reserved for cases in

which the adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party. Id.

at 836 (quotingH.F. Livermore Corp. v. Aktiengesellschaft Gebruder Loepfe, 432 F.2d 689, 691

(D.C. Cir. 1970)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Cognizant of the strong policies favoring

the resolution of genuine disputes on their merits, id. at 834, the Court notes that this is not a

case where defendant has been an essentially unresponsive party.Id. at 836. Rather, defendant

answered plaintiffs amended complaint before plaintiff moved for an entry of default.

Accordingly, the Court will neither strike defendants answer nor enter a default judgment

against defendant. Plaintiffs Motion [18] to Strike and Motion [20] for Default Judgment are

therefore DENIED.



4/26

3

Plaintiffs Motion [19] for Clarification requests clarification of this Courts Order [13]

requiring plaintiff to refile her complaint and amended complaint with properly redacted social

security numbers. Plaintiff has already filed her redacted complaint [16] and amended complaint

[17], and thus her Motion [19] for Clarification is DENIED as moot.

Finally, plaintiffs Motion [22] to Compel asks the Court to compel compliance with a

Rule 45 subpoena issued by plaintiff to the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii. The

subpoena seeks access to the original long-form birth certificate issued to the President in 1961.

The requested birth certificate has nothing to do with this case, which relates to plaintiffs FOIA

request for various documents in the possession of the SSA. Inspection of the birth certificate

would resolve none of the issues before this Court. Accordingly, plaintiffs Motion [22] to

Compel is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Signed by Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge, on August 30, 2011.



5/26

Exhibit 2



6/26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

DR. ORLY TAITZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

COMMISSIONS OF THE SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

_____________________________

)

)

))

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL NO. 11-00519 SOM-RLP

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFSEMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION FOR

EMERGENCY ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

AND TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE FOR

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR

ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS AND

VACATING HEARING

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION FOR EMERGENCY

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS AND FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS AND VACATING HEARING

On August 8, 2011, Plaintiff Orlay Taitz (Plaintiff)

filed an Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Emergency Order To Show

Cause and to Compel Attendance for Production of Documents and

for Attorneys Fees and Costs (Motion). Docket No. 1. The

Motion sought to enforce a subpoena issued in a case proceeding

in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,

Civil Action No. 11-402 (RCL) (District of Columbia action).

The subpoena sought to compel third-party witness Loretta Fuddy,

Director of Health, State of Hawaii, to produce for inspection

the original birth certificate of the President of the United

States Barack Obama.

The Court determined that the Motion should be heard in

the normal course and set a hearing for September 14, 2011.

Docket No. 4. On August 24, 2011, Ms. Fuddy filed a Memorandum

in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion. Docket No. 9. At a hearing

Case 1:11-cv-00519-SOM -RLP Document 15 Filed 10/26/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:182



7/26

2

before Chief Judge Susan Oki Mollway on August 30, 2011, the

court was informed that the District of Columbia action had been

dismissed. See Docket No. 12. Plaintiff informed the court that

she would be filing a motion for reconsideration of the District

of Columbia courts decision. Id. The court continued the

hearing on the Motion and ordered that Plaintiff file her reply

by September 20, 2011, which she did. See id.; Docket No. 20.

The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition

without a hearing pursuant to Rule 7.2(d) of the Local Rules of

Practice of the United States District Court for the District of

Hawaii. The hearing set for November 21, 2011 is VACATED. The

United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued

a Memorandum and Order denying Plaintiffs motion for

reconsideration. Taitz v. Astrue, Civil Action No. 11-402 (RCL),

2011 WL 3805741 (D.D.C. Oct. 17, 2011). Because the District of

Columbia action has been dismissed, Plaintiffs Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, OCTOBER 26, 2011

_____________________________

Richard L. Puglisi

United States Magistrate Judge

TAITZ V. ASTRUE, CIVIL NO. 11-00519 SOM-RLP; ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFFS EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION FOR EMERGENCY ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE AND TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND

FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS AND VACATING HEARING

Case 1:11-cv-00519-SOM -RLP Document 15 Filed 10/26/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:183



8/26

Exhibit 3



9/26



10/26



11/26



12/26

Exhibit 4



13/26



14/26



15/26

Exhibit 5



16/26



17/26



18/26



19/26



20/26

Exhibit 6



21/26



22/26



23/26



24/26

Exhibit 7



25/26

NO. SCPW-12-0000014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

DR. ORLY TAITZ, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE RHONDA A. NISHIMURA, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUITCOURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Dr. Orly Taitz's

petition for a writ of mandamus, it appears that petitioner fails

to demonstrate an entitlement to mandamus relief. See Kema v.

Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of

mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless

the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to

relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the

alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. Such writs are not

intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the

lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in

lieu of normal appellate procedures. ). Accordingly,

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-12-0000014

12-JAN-201212:52 PM



26/26

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 12, 2012.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

2
