Jean S. Schanen, Power of Attorney for Lascelle Tillet v. United States Dep't of Just., 798 F.2d 348 (9th Cir. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Jean S. Schanen, Power of Attorney for Lascelle Tillet v. United States Dep't of Just., 798 F.2d 348 (9th Cir. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
37 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Antonio Aviles Venegas and Martha Alamilla Jaimes (caeb, 2024-02-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Antonio Aviles Venegas and Martha Alamilla Jaimes
Bankr. E.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
Cal. 1988) (Upon 2 reconsideration, the court affirmed a previous order and ordered 3 attorneys’ fees to be paid by defendant); Schanen v. United 4 States Department of Justice, 798 F.2d 348, 350 (9th Cir. 5 1986)(remanding a case to the trial court to award costs and fees 6 against the government because of prolonged proceedings due to 7 the government’s lack of diligence); Graziadei v. Graziadei (In 8 Re Graziadei), 32 F.3d 1408, 1411 (9th Cir. 1994) (affirming a 9 district court order requiring restitution of funds obtained to 10 satisfy a judgment when the judgment was subsequently dec…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Nancy Mageno
9th Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
Finally, we recognize that vacating our opinion at this point will result in a significant waste of judicial resources; if the government had acted more diligently, “much controversy and expense could have been avoided. ” Schanen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 798 F.2d 348, 350 (9th Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Piper v. United States, Department of Justice
D.D.C. · 2005 · confidence medium
Id.; Schanen v. Dep’t of Justice, 798 F.2d 348, 349 (9th Cir.1985) (reversing denial of Rule 60(b) motion and preventing release of documents that, based on a review of in camera submissions, would endanger the lives of DEA agents and confidential informants); Billington v. Dep’t of Justice, 301 F.Supp.2d 15 (D.D.C.2004); see also August, 328 F.3d at 699-702 (remanding case to district court under authority of 28 U.S.C. § 2106 because third party safety and privacy interests at stake and “the law does not require that third parties pay for the Government’s mistakes”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kaseman v. District of Columbia
D.D.C. · 2005 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. August v. FBI, 328 F.3d 697, 701-02 (D.C.Cir.2003) (citing Schanen v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 798 F.2d 348, 349 (9th Cir.1985)) (allowing government to raise issues belatedly, and rejecting a "press it at the threshold, or lose it for all times” approach). 3 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) August v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
D.C. Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Responsibility v. United States Secret Serv., 72 F.3d 897, 903-04 (D.C.Cir.1996) (holding that the district court erred in refusing to grant the Secret Service’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to rehear arguments about the appbcabibty of FOIA Exemptions 7(C) and 7(D) in bght of the Secret Service’s belatedly proffered proof of a promise of confidentiahty, noting that the case was “not the ordinary one,” since “it involves not only the interests of the Secret Service, but that of a third party whose identity and information are expressly protected by FOIA”); Schanen v. United States Dep�…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) M.A. Mortenson Company v. The United States
Fed. Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Enters., Inc., 792 F.2d 906, 910-11 (9th Cir.1986) (affirming award of fees against the government under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37); Schanen v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 798 F.2d 348, 350 (9th Cir.1986) (approving an assessment of fees and costs against the government for failure properly to defend a Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Patrick McBride and Sonya McBride v. Dwight Coleman, Lester Crowsheart, Sharon Crowsheart, Russel Folmer, Anna Mae Folmer, George Hatfield, June Hatfield, Donna McCabe Diane McCabe on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, Gary A. Barrett, Rosemary K. Barrett, Richard L. Harmon, Betty J. Harmon, Larry L. Robertson, Nancy K. Robertson, Ross Wade and Maureen Wade v. Clayton Yeutter, Secretary of Agriculture, Charles W. Shuman, Administrator of the Farmers Home Administration, Ralph W. Leet, State Director of the Farmers Home Administration Harold T. Aasmundstad, Glen W. Binegar, Allen G. Drege, Dennis W. Larson, Odell O. Ottmar, and Joseph J. Schneider, as District Directors of the Farmers Home Administration of North Dakota Samuel Delvo, Lorace Hakanson, Larry Leier, Charles Schaefer and James Well as County Supervisors of the Farmers Home Administration in North Dakota, David Marshall, Dwight Sewell and Steve Taylor
8th Cir. · 1992 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Schanen v. United States Dep't of Justice, 798 F.2d 348, 350 (9th Cir.1986) (awarding a fugitive from justice and her lawyer attorney fees and costs related to the government's failure to defend diligently a FOIA action: "Since it was the government's lack of diligence that prolonged these proceedings, justice demands that Schanen and Tillet be compensated for their expenses occasioned by the additional proceedings.").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McBride v. Coleman
8th Cir. · 1992 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Schanen v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 798 F.2d 348, 350 (9th Cir.1986) (awarding a fugitive from justice and her lawyer attorney fees and costs related to the government's failure to defend diligently a FOIA action: "Since it was the government’s lack of diligence that prolonged these proceedings, justice demands that Schanen and Tillet be compensated for their expenses occasioned by the additional proceedings.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Good Hope Industries, Inc., Debtor. Appeal of United States of America
1st Cir. · 1989 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Schanen v. United States Department of Justice, 798 F.2d 348, 350 (9th Cir.1986) (ordering the United States to pay attorneys’ fees pursuant to Federal Rule 60(b), which does not refer to “attorney’s fees,” but provides that a court may relieve a party from a final judgment “upon such terms as are just”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) George L. Barry v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services
9th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
See United States v. Gavilan Joint Community College Dist., 849 F.2d 1246, 1251 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. National Medical Enters., Inc., 792 F.2d 906, 911 (9th Cir.1986); Schanen v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 798 F.2d 348, 350 (9th Cir.1986), respectively.
discussed Cited "see" Volpicelli v. Palmer
D. Nev. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Schanen 12 || v. United States Dep't of Justice, 762 F.2d 805, 807-08 (9th Cir.1985), reaffd as modified, 13 || 798 F.2d 348 (9th Cir.1986) (new arguments which a party could have raised prior to entry 14 || of the underlying judgment do not warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6)). 15 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Volpicelli’s motion for relief from judgment 16 || under Fed.
discussed Cited "see" Volpicelli v. LeGrand
D. Nev. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Schanen v. United States Dep't of Just., 762 F.2d 805, 807-08 (9th Cir. 9 || 1985), reaff'd as modified, 798 F.2d 348 (9th Cir. 1986) (new arguments which a party 10 || could have raised prior to entry of the underlying judgment do not warrant relief under 11 || Rule 60(b)(6)). 12 It is therefore ordered Volpicelli's motion for relief from judgment under Fed.
discussed Cited "see" In Re Carlos A. Negrete Patricia L. Negrete, D/B/A Hazel Ridge Bicycle Center, Debtors. Bruce B. Alexander v. Richard E. Bleau United States Trustee
9th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Schanen v. United States Dep't of Justice, 762 F.2d 805, 807-08 (9th Cir.1985), reaff'd as modified, 798 F.2d 348 (9th Cir.1986) (new arguments which a party could have raised prior to entry of the underlying judgment do not warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6)). 11 Finally, in his motion for rehearing to the BAP, Alexander also suggests that he did not appeal from the underlying bankruptcy court order only because "[a] reversal on appeal from that order was inconceivable." However, a moving party's tactical decision not to appeal does not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to…
discussed Cited "see" Eric Haywood Weinstein v. Samuel Lewis, Eric Haywood Weinstein v. Samuel A. Lewis
9th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
Id. at 1415-16 ; see Schanen v. United States Dep't of Justice, 762 F.2d 805, 808 (9th Cir.1985), reaff'd as modified by 798 F.2d 348 (9th Cir.1985) (mere conclusory allegations insufficient to demonstrate excusable neglect). 4 In determining whether the moving party has shown excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1), the district court should liberally construe the motion in favor of deciding cases on the merits.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Carly Randall v. Clint Im, The Bottling Co., LLC, Relief Brand LLC, CBD Direct LLC, OHC LLC, and Industry Supply LLC
D. Or. · 2026 · signal: see also · confidence low
Relief J. 2; see also Schanen v. United States Dep’t of Just., 762 F.2d 805 , 807–08 (9th Cir.1985) (affirming the district court’s holding that “new arguments raised after final judgment which could have been raised earlier would not justify relief from judgment” and holding that “[t]he refusal of the district court to consider new arguments at that stage did not constitute an abuse of discretion in spite of [the defendant’s] assertion that dire consequences would result from denial of the motion”), reaff’d as modified, 798 F.2d 348 (9th Cir. 1986); Redwind v. W.
cited Cited "see, e.g." In re: Martha Aviles AND Antonio Aviles
9th Cir. BAP · 2024 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Schanen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 798 F.2d 348, 350 (9th Cir. 1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kirby Vining v. District of Columbia
D.C. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, e.g. , Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. United States Dep't of Justice , 142 F.Supp.3d 1 , 6-9 (D.D.C. 2015) (evaluating the reasonableness of the government's withholding separately for different rounds of briefing and concluding that the requester was entitled to fees for both rounds); see also Schanen v. United States Dep't of Justice , 798 F.2d 348 , 350 (9th Cir. 1985) (remanding with instructions to award costs and fees "attributable to all proceedings following the grant of summary judgment"); cf. Bloomgarden v. United States Dep't of Justice , 253 F.Supp.3d 16…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Horn
1st Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Dist., 849 F.2d 1246, 1251 (9th Cir. 1988) (similar); see also Schanen v. United States DOJ, 798 F.2d 348, 350 (9th Cir. 1985) (imposing monetary penalty against government under Fed.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Richard A. Horn
1st Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Dist., 849 F.2d 1246, 1251 (9th Cir.1988) (similar); see also Schanen v. United States DOJ, 798 F.2d 348, 350 (9th Cir.1985) (imposing monetary penalty against government under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) without addressing sovereign immunity); United States v. National Medical Enters., Inc., 792 F.2d 906, 910-11 (9th Cir.1986) (upholding penalty against government imposed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b) without addressing sovereign immunity).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Horn
1st Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Dist., ______________ _________________________________ 849 F.2d 1246, 1251 (9th Cir. 1988) (similar); see also Schanen ___ ____ _______ v. United States DOJ, 798 F.2d 348, 350 (9th Cir. 1985) (imposing _________________ monetary penalty against government under Fed.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jean S. SCHANEN, Power of Attorney for Lascelle Tillet, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant-Appellant
84-4028, 84-4239.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 20, 1986.
798 F.2d 348
1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 28817
Jean Schanen, Schanen Law Firm, Wasilla, Alaska, for plaintiff-appellee., Deborah Ruth Kant, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant.
Goodwin, Schroeder, Beezer.
Cited by 33 opinions  |  Published

ORDER

This order is made necessary by reason of the failure of the United States Attorneys representing the Department of Justice to defend a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) claim in a competent manner. On petition for rehearing before this court, the government now achieves a result that it most certainly would have achieved before the district court had the government litigated this case diligently.

Many of the relevant facts and much of the procedural history of this case may be found in our opinion, which is published at 762 F.2d 805. However, a brief summary is in order.

Jean S. Schanen, as attorney-in-fact for Lascelle Tillet, commenced an action under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, to compel disclosure of various documents relating to Tillet’s indictment on federal narcotics charges. The government answered that (1) Tillet was a fugitive from justice and, therefore, not entitled to sue in federal court, and (2) the requested information was exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) because it would interfere with law enforcement activities.

The government moved to dismiss on the fugitive from justice grounds. Schanen filed a combined “opposition” and motion for summary judgment. The government did not respond to Schanen’s motion for summary judgment. The district court denied the government’s motion to dismiss and granted Schanen’s motion for summary judgment on the merits.

Several months later, the government moved to set aside the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) and (6). The government emphasized that its failure to respond was excusable neglect. The government also argued that dire consequences would follow if the judgment were not set aside. The government’s supporting affidavits, however, gave no details regarding the need for specific deletions, but merely asserted in a conclusory manner that certain disclosures would result in unwarranted invasions of privacy or reveal the identity of a confidential source. The government treated the rule 60(b) motion in all material respects as if the motion were merely a response to Schanen’s motion for summary judgment. The district court denied the government’s rule 60(b) motion.

The government appealed the district court’s denial of the government’s rule 60(b) motion. The government argued, inter alia, that the documents were “highly sensitive,” and would result, in the “release of the names of confidential informants, law enforcement personnel, other targets of the criminal investigation, and other third parties.” The government was not sufficiently concerned with the matter to submit the documents for our in camera review. Based on the record before us, we held that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See 762 F.2d at 808.

After we filed our opinion, the government petitioned for rehearing. For the first time, the government argued in explicit terms that release of the documents would endanger the lives of DEA agents and confidential informants. Sua sponte we ordered the government to submit all relevant documents together with specific exemption claims for our in camera review. See Schanen v. United States Department of Justice, 773 F.2d 1065 (9th Cir.1985).

We have reviewed the documents and the exemption claims. There is no doubt; various FOIA exemptions apply. Release of the documents would endanger the lives and well-being of agents and informants. We will not be a party to the potential for harm that would follow release of these documents. The documents must not be released.

However, we adhere to our earlier reasoning. The government failed to raise proper defenses or oppose summary judgment. 762 F.2d at 808. The government failed to present sufficient evidence to the district court in support of its rule 60(b) motion. Id. Based on the government’s presentation of its case, the district court neither erred nor abused its discretion.

[*350] If the government attorneys had defended this action diligently, much controversy and expense could have been avoided. Rule 60(b) provides that the court may relieve a party from a final judgment “upon such terms as are just.” Since it was the government’s lack of diligence that prolonged these proceedings, justice demands that Schanen and Tillet be compensated for their expenses occasioned by the additional proceedings. Therefore, on remand, the district court shall order the government to recompense Schanen and Tillet for their actual and reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees attributable to all proceedings following the grant of summary judgment, including proceedings before this court.

In summary, we reaffirm our opinion published at 762 F.2d 805, but modify our mandate to direct the district court to grant the government’s rule 60(b) motion and enter judgment in favor of the government. We remand this case to the district court for imposition of costs and fees as discussed above. This panel will retain jurisdiction over any appeals from the orders of the district court in this case.

762 F.2d 805 REAFFIRMED AS MODIFIED, CAUSE REMANDED.