Also filed in connec tion with the defenda nt’s motion are the D efe ndant’s Reply and 1 Me mor and

um o f P oints a

nd Autho ri tie s in

Op po sit ion

to P la int if

f’ s O pp os iti on

and Cr os smotion for Summary

J udg ment (“D ef.’ s Reply ”), the Plaintiff’s Reply to Defe ndant’s Opposition to Cross-motion for Summ ary J udg ment (Pl.’s Reply ”), the defe ndant’s Statement of G enuine I ssues of F act Not in Dispute (“ Def .’s Stmt.”), and the plaintiff’ s Statement of Mater ial Fa cts Not in Dispute (“Pl.’s Stmt.”). UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA FED ERALCURE (Fe dCURE) : : : Civil Action No. 07-843 Plaintiff, :

: v . :

: HA RL EYG. L APP I

N, DI REC TO R, : FED ERALBU REAU OF PRI SONS : : : De fe nd ant. :

____________________________ :
Mem orandum Opini on Fe dera l CURE, I nc. (“ Fe dCURE” or “the plaintiff”) broug ht this l awsuit ag ainst the F e de ra l B ur e a

u o f P ri so ns (“ B OP” or

“ the de fe nd ant” ) c la imi ngthat th e de fe nd ant i mpr op e rl y denied the pla intiff’s fe e wa iver re quest for infor mation sought unde r the F ree dom of Inf or matio n A c t ( “ F OIA” ), 5 U .S. C. § 55 2 ( 20 06 ). Com pla int (“ Com pl. ” ) ¶ ¶ 2 0- 21 . Curr e ntl y befor e the Court is the De fenda nt’s Motion for Summary J udg ment and its supporting
me mor and

um ( “ De f. ’s Me m.” ) m a de purs ua nt t o F e de ra l Ru le of

Civ il Pr oc e dure 56 , whic h is challeng ed by

the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Summ ary J udg ment (“Pl.’s Opp’n” ). In the plaintiff’s opposition, in addition to opposi ngsummary judgme nt in favor of

the 1 defe ndant, the plaintiff ha s cross-motioned the Court to g rant summary judgme nt in its favor
.2

Upon consider ation of the pa rties’ submissions, the Court will deny the def endant’ s motion for summary judgme nt and g rant summary judgme nt in favor of

the plaintiff. I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound The plaintiff, F edCURE, “is a 501( c)( 3) non-pr ofit org anization, [ which] advocates for the fe dera l inmate population and their fa milies.” Compl. ¶ 6. FedCURE “a lso provides information to the public about the wor kings of the B OP.” I d. ¶ 7. On F ebrua ry 25, 2005, F e dCU RE s ub mitte d a

F OIA r e qu e st t o th e B OP’ s F OIA/ Pr iva c y Ac t ( “ PA” ) u

nit se e kin g : 1) all inform ation about the ac cura cy of the ion spec trometer sc anning method and the number of visit ors turned a way at all B OP fac iliti es (by fac ility) bec ause of

the re sults of the s canningmethod since instit ution of its use, 2) all information relatingto the training methods used for pe rsonnel operating this equipment and staff comments as to these methods a nd 3) a ll r e c or ds of

e qu ipm e nt f

a ilure and re pa ir s. Def .’s Mem., Exhibi t (“Ex.”) 2 (L etter f rom Kenne th L inn, Chairman of F edCURE, to BOP FOIA/PA unit, dated Fe bruar y 25, 2005) (“ L inn Feb. 25, 2005 L etter” ). The B OP’s FOIA/PA office acknow ledg ed its rec eipt of F edCURE’s F OIA re quest in a letter dated April 4, 2005. De f.’s Mem., Ex. 3 (L etter f rom Wanda M. Hunt, Chief of B OP FOIA/PA Section, to Kenneth L inn, Chairman of F edCURE, dated A pril 4, 2005) (“ Hunt Apr. 4, 20 05 L e tte r” ). Th e le tte r i nf or me d F e dCU RE t

hat th e se arc h f

or the re qu e ste d in fo rm atio n w ou ld require 142 hours at $7.00 per quarte r hour f

or prof essional time to proce ss the reque st for a total cost of $3,976.00, excluding duplica tion fees of

10 cents pe r pag e. I d. The letter also informed Fe dCURE that the BOP would conduc t the sear ch if the $3,976.00 se arc h fee was pa id within 30 day s. I d. In an Apr il 20, 2005, letter, Fe dCURE requeste d that the B OP waive the $3,976.00 se arc h fee and any

copying f

ees. D ef.’ s Mem., Ex . 4 (L etter f rom Kenne th L inn, Chairman of3

F e d C U R E , t o B O P F O IA/ P A un i t , d at e d Ap r i l 2 0 , 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ Li n nAp r . 2 0 , 2 0 0 5 Le t t e r ” )
. In support of this fee waiver reque st, FedCURE’s letter asser ted, inter a lia, that Fe dCURE is a nonprofit org anization that rece ives less than $5,000.00 in y ear ly donations and that F edCURE is a “noncommer cial scie ntific institut ion,” and a “re prese ntative of the ne ws media” by virtue of the publication of its newsletters. I d. Fe dCURE additionally asser ted that the ava ilability

of information about the ion spec trometer w as in the public intere st and not in FedCURE’s
commerc ial interest, that F edCURE had re ceive d numerous re quests from the public f or information about the ion spec trometer, a nd that it intended to publish t he ion spec trometer information in its newsletter a nd on its website. I d. In a letter dated Septembe r 26, 2005, the B OP denied F edCURE’s re quest for a FOIA fe e waiver , finding that Fe dCURE did not m eet the statutory definitions of a “ noncommerc ial scientific institution” or “a r epre sentative of the news media ” under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a). De f.’s Mem., Ex. 5 (L etter f

rom Wanda M. Hunt, Chief of B OP FOIA/PA Section, to Kenneth L inn, Chairman of F edCURE, dated Septe mber 26, 2005) ( “Hunt Sept. 26, 2005 L etter” ). On November

1, 2005, Fe dCURE administratively appea led the denia l of its FOIA fe e wa iver reque st to the Office of Information and Priva cy (“O I P”) at the D epar

tment of J ustice (“ DOJ”). Def .’s Mem., Ex. 6 (L etter f

rom Kenne th L inn, Chairman of F edCURE, to OI P, dated Novembe r 1, 20 05 ) ( “ L inn

No v. 1, 20 05 L e tte r” ). In it s a dmi nis tr ativ e a pp e a l, F e dCU RE r e a sse rt e d th at it
satis fi e d th e statut or

y pr e re qu isi te s f

or a fe e wa ive r a

nd a lso c ite d c a se s “ ho ldi ngthat th e pu bli c interest bene fit test is to be liberally construed.” I d. On J une 29, 2006, the OI P determined that F edCURE’s F OIA fe e wa iver re quest had been pr operly

denied by

the B OP. Def.’ s Mem., Ex . 7 (L etter f rom Danie l J . Metca lfe, Dire ctor of OI P, to Kenneth L inn, Chairman of F edCURE, dated June 29, 2006) (“ Metca lfe June 29, 20064

L etter” ). F edCURE then submitted a “Rec onsideration of A ppeal De nial” on Jul y

10, 2006, Def .’s Mem., Ex. 8 (L etter f

rom Kenne th L inn, Chairman of F edCURE, to Daniel Metc alfe , D i r e c t o r o f O IP , d at e d

J u l y 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( “ Li n nJ u l y

1 0 , 2 0 0 6 Le t t e r ” ) , wh i c hw a s d e n i e d b y th e O IP
on No ve mbe r 8 , 2 00 6, De f. ’s Me m., Ex. 9 (L e tte r f ro m D anie l J. Me tc a lf

e , D ir e c tor

of OI P, t o Kenne th L inn, Chairman of F edCURE, dated N ovember 8, 2006) (“ Metca lfe Nov. 8, 2006 L etter” ). F edCURE subsequently filed this action on May

8, 2007. II. Stand ard of Review Th e Court

may g ra nt a mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt i f t

he ple a din g s, de po sit ion s,
answe rs to interrog atories, a nd admissions on file, toge ther with af fidavits or dec larations, show that there is no ge nuine issue of mate rial fa ct and that the movingparty is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. F ed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The movingparty bear s the burden of

demonstratingthe absenc e of a

g enuine issue of

materia l fac t. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). F a c tua l a sse rt ion s in

the mov ing

pa rt y ' s a ff ida vit s o r d e c laratio ns may

be a c c e pte d a s tr

ue un le ss the opposing party

submits hi s own aff

idavits or decla

rations or doc umentary

evidenc e to the contra ry . Nea l v. Kelly , 963 F.2d 453, 456 ( D.C. Cir. 1992). III . Le ga l A nal ys is In a ca se re g ardinga F OIA fe e wa iver re quest, the Court deter mines the matter de novo, basingits decision solely

on the re cord that was bef ore the ag ency . 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(4) (A)( vii);
see a lso Nat' l Trea sury

Employ ees Union v. Griffin, 811 F .2d 644, 648 (D.C. Cir.1987). The leg islative history

of the F OIA fe e wa iver provision indicate s that it “‘is to be liberally construed in favor of

waiver s for nonc ommercia l reque sters.’” McClellan Ecolog ical Seepa g e Situation v. Carlucc i, 835 F.2d 1282, 1284 (9th Cir. 1987) ( quoting 132 Cong . Rec. S14298 (Sept. 30, 1986) (statement of

Sen. L eahy

)); see also J udicial Watch, Inc. v. Rossotti, 326 F.3d 1309, 1312 (D .C.5

Cir. 2003) (construingthe waive r provision liberally ). The f ee w aiver provision itself provides that: [d] ocuments shall be furnished without any char g e . . . if disclosure of the inf or matio n is in t

he pu bli c in ter e st b e c a

us e it i s li ke ly

to contribute sig nificantly

to public understanding of the ope rations and activities of the g overnme nt and is not p ri m ar i l y in the commerc ial interest of the reque ster. 5 U .S. C. § 55 2 ( a )( 4) (A )( iii )( e mph a sis a dd e d) . T hu s, the statut e pr e sc ri be s a tw o- pr on g e d te st the re quester must satisfy to qualify

for a FOIA fe e wa iver. The first prongrequire s that the disclosure be in the public interest, while the se cond prongrequire s that the information soug ht not be primarily

in the reque ster’s c ommercia l interests. In a sse ssi ngwh e the r a

re qu e st s atis fi e s th e pu

bli c and no n- c omm e rc ia l inte re sts require ments of § 552(a )(4) (A)( iii), 28 C.F.R. § 16.11 delineate s six fac tors that further ref ine the two -p ro n gedFO I A f

ee wa i v er t es t . T h e f

i rs tfo ur f ac t o rs ad dre s s th e p u

b l i c i n t er es tp ro n g, probing : (1) “Whether

the subject of the reque st conce rns the ‘ope rations or a ctivities of the g overnme nt,’” (2) “Whether the disclosure ‘is likely to contribute to an unde rstandingof g ov e rnme nt o pe ratio ns or a c tiv iti e s, ’” (3 ) “ Whe the r d isc los ur e of the re qu e ste d in fo rm atio n w ill
c on tr ibute to ‘ pu

bli c un de rs tand ing ,’ ” and (4 ) “ Whe the r t

he dis c los ur e is l ike ly

to c on tr ibute ‘sig nificantly ’ to public understa nding of g overnme nt operations or activities.” 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(k)( 2). The fina l two fac tors conce rn the re quester’ s commerc ial interest, inquiring : (5) “Whether the reque ster has a commerc ial interest that would be f urthere d by

the re quested dis c los ur e ,” and

(6 ) “ Whe the r a

ny ide nti fi e d c omm e rc ia l inte re st o f t he re qu e ste r i s su ff

ic ie ntl y larg e, in compar ison with the public interest in disclosure,” the reby rende ringthe disclosure “primar ily

in the commerc ial interest of the reque ster.” I d. § 16.11(k)( 3). Th e B OP c on c e de s th at F e dCU RE’ s r e qu e st p ro ba bly satis fi e s th e fi rs t of

the six f a c tor s.6

Def .’s Mem. at 22. This Court is inclined to ag ree , as information reg ardingthe use of ion spectrome ters at f

eder al prisons clea

rly “conc ern[s] [ an] identifiable oper ation[] or ac tivit[ y ] of the fe dera l gove rnment, with a c onnection that is direc t and clea r, not remote or

attenuate d.” 28 C.F.R. § 16.11 (k)( 2)(i). The BO P likewise does not contend that F edCURE fails to meet the require ments of fa ctors five or six . See De f.’s Mem. As a § 501(c) (3) non- profit org anization, Compl. ¶ 6, the Court ag ree s that Fe dCURE’s reque sts are not roote d in a “pur pose that fur

thers [its] c omm e rc ia l, t

ra de , o r p ro fi t inte re sts ,” 28 C.F .R. § 1 6. 11 (b )( 1) ; th e re fo re , th e fi ft h a nd sixth fac tors of the re g ulation are met, and ac cording ly , the sec ond prongof F OIA’s fe e wa iver provision is satisfied. “F or a r equest to be in the ‘ public interest,’ [all] four [publ ic intere st] criter ia must be satisfied,” Judicial Watch v. Dep’t of Justice, 365 F.3d 1108, 1126 ( D.C. Cir. 2004), a burde n that is shouldered by

the re questing party

based on the rec ord that wa s befor e the a g ency , L arson v. CI A, 843 F.2d 1481, 1483 ( D.C. Cir.1988). The B OP asserts that F edCURE fails to satisfy the re quirements of f

actor s two, three a

nd four, a nd there fore has not satisfied the f irst prongof the fe e wa ive r p ro vis ion

of 5 U .S. C. § 55 2( a )( 4) (A )( iii ). De f. ’s Me m. at 23 -3 2. Th e Court wi ll addre ss eac h of these thr ee f actor s in turn. 1. Has F edCURE Demonstrated that Disclosure is “L ikely to Contribute” to an Inc re a se d Pu

bli c Un de rs tand ingof

Go ve rnme nt A c tiv iti e s o r O pe ra tio ns ? To satisfy the sec ond of the six factors, F edCURE must show that the information reque sted would be “ meaning fully informative a

bout gove rnment oper ations or ac tiviti es in order to be ‘likely

to contribute’ to an inc rea sed public under standing of those oper ations or ac tiviti es.” 28 C.F.R. § 16.11 (k)( 2)(ii). The BO P contends that what F edCURE seeks is hig hly technica l inf or matio n r e g ard ingion

sp e c tr ome tr

y , whic h it

ha s n o p lans to a

na ly ze, sy nth e size or

oth e rw ise7

dige st, and which would only be conve y ed to a small g roup of pe ople. Def .’s Mem., Ex. 7 at 2. Ac c or din g ly , th e B OP a

rgue s th at th e re qu e ste d in fo rm atio n is un lik e ly to b e “ me anin g fu lly informative” or likely

to contribute to “incr ease d public understanding .” De f.’s Mem. at 24. F e dCU RE c ounte rs by

statin gthat it

do e s a na ly ze t e c hn ic a l in fo rm atio n whe n it ans we rs re qu e sts for infor mation on its Yahoo discussion gr oup, Pl. ’s Op p’ n at 25 , a nd that c a se law, sp e c if

ic a lly Carney v. Dep’ t of J ustice, 19 F .3d 807 (2d Cir. 1994), re jects the B OP’s “small audienc e” argument. Pl.’s Opp’n at 26. F or the re asons explained below, the Court sides with the plaintiff. The Court ac knowledg es that while Car ney was de cided in a dif

fer ent context, i.e., the
aca demic ar ena, the g ener al principles of the ca se support the plaintiff’ s position. The plaintiff in Carney was a doctora l student who sought g overnme nt rec ords in order to use that information in prepa ringsever al scholar ly

paper s and a book. I d. at 810. Carne y also advised the D OJ that he planne d to use the information in several c olleg e cour ses he taught. I d. The DO J argued that despite Carne y ’s asser

tions, because the information wa s scholarly in nature, the information would not rea ch a g ener al audienc e and thus the infor mation would fail to benef it the public at larg e. I d. at 815. The Car ney court disagree d with the DOJ, st atingthat the “r eleva nt inquiry , as
we se e it, is whether the reque ster will disseminate the disclosed r ecor ds to a rea sonably broad audienc e of pe rsons intereste d in the subject.” I d. The Car ney court fur ther stated that there w as very littl e information written pertainingto the subject of the pla intiff’s FO I A re quest and that the c ourt wa s satis fi e d, ba se d o n th e su bmi ssi on s to the c ourt , th at th e pla int if f w ou ld disseminate the re cords to a “ rea sonably broad a udience of per sons interested in the subjec t.” I d. Her e, F edCURE stated that it analy zes and sy

nthesizes technical infor

mation when pr oc e ssi ngYa

ho o d isc us sio n g ro up inq uir ie s. Pl. ’s Op p’ n at 25 . L ike the pla int if f’ s d e sir e in Carn e y to o bta in i nf

or matio n a nd re lay it t o h is f e llo w s c ho lars and

the stu de nts he ta

ug ht,See 2 htt p:/ /w ww .f e dc ur e .o rg/ne ws le tte r. sh tml
.

8 Fe dCURE seeks to rela

y ion spectrometr

y information to fede ral inmates a nd their families. I d. at 27. Ther efor e, the infor mation disseminated by

Fe dCURE via its website, newsletter and chat room will inevitably

trickle down f

rom those who have sent inquiries to others who have an int e re st r e late d to pr iso ns . Thus, like the Carne y court, “ [t his Court is] satisfied that [FedCURE] wi ll d iss e min ate the dis c los e d r e c or ds to a su ff ic ie ntl y br oa d a ud ie nc e of

[fe de ra l inmate s, the ir families and other s ] i ntere sted in [t he ac tiviti es and ope rations of the f eder al prison sy stem]” and thus, increa se the limited information curr ently written re g ardingthe subject matter of the plaintiff’s F OIA re quest. Carne y , 19 F.3d at 815. Fur thermore , this Court i s inclined to adopt the rationale employ ed in For est Guar dians v. U.S. Dep’t of I

nterior, whe re the Tenth Circuit Court of Appea ls held that the plaintiff had satisfied the sec ond and third fa ctors of the above r efe renc ed re g ulation beca use the plaintiff

“ pu bli sh e [d] an o nli ne ne ws le tte r, wh ic h is e ma ile d to mor e tha n 2 ,5 00 pe op le and

state d th at it intend[ed] to establish an intera ctive g razing website with information obtained from [the de fe nd ant]. ” 41 6 F .3 d 1 17 3, 11 80 (1 0th Cir . 2 00 5) (i nte rn a l qu otatio ns omi tte d) . F e dCU RE a lso pu bli sh e s an o nli ne ne ws le tte r, wh ic h it e ma ils to r ou g hly

2, 00 0 s ub sc ri be rs , 2 and

ma int a ins a website with daily

news updates. Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. C at 1. Fe dCURE need not, as the B OP
argue s, De f. ’s Me m. a

t 29 , d istri bute pr int e d mate ri a ls i n o rd e r t o p ro ve that th e y c an c on tr ibute to an incre ased public unde rstandingof the g overnme nt’s activities. Def .’s Mem. at 29. Indeed, compar ed with the plaintiffs in F orest Gua rdians, who ha d not y et eve n established a w ebsite, Fe dCURE has actua lly

done more to demonstrate their ability to convey

meaning ful information thr ou g h th e ir

a lr e a dy e sta bli sh e d w e bs ite , whic h h a s r e c e ive d “ ov e r 2 50 ,0 00 hit s” , i. e ., vie wi ng s, since its inception two y ear s ag o. Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. E at 1. L ibera lly construingthe fe e wa iver9

require ments in the favor of the re quester a s it must , the Court finds that Fe dCURE’s website, newsletter

and cha t room are an ade quate mea ns of disseminating inf

ormation about ion
s p e c tr o m e tr

y. There fore , the Court must conclude that F edCURE has met its burden of showing that the reque sted information would be “ meaning fully informative a

bout gove rnment oper ations or
a c tiv iti e s so a s to be ‘l ike ly to c on tr ibute ’ t o a

n in c re a se d p ub lic un de rs tand ingof tho se operations or activities.” 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(k) (2)( ii).

2. Has F edCURE Demonstrated that the Disclosed I nformation will Reac h a Re a so na bly B ro a d G ro up of

Inte re ste d Pe rs on s? To satisfy the third fac tor, Fe dCURE must s how that disclosure of the re quested information will contribute to “public unde rstanding ” of g overnme nt operations or activities by
rea chinga “r easona

bly broad a udience of per sons interested in the subjec t [ are a].” I d. § 16 .1 1( k) (2 )( iii ). To make thi s sh ow ing , a re qu e ste r m

us t de mon str ate the “ int e nti on to e ff e c tiv e ly convey [t he re quested] information to the public . . . .” I d. Fe dCURE’s intention to di sseminate the r equeste d information ca nnot be cha lleng ed and it c on te nd s th at it s w e bs ite , n e ws le tte r, and Ya ho o d isc us sio n g ro up su ff ic ie ntl y de mon str ate its ability to disseminate the re quested infor mation to a rea sonably

broad se g ment of the public. Pl. ’s Op p’ n at 27 . T he B OP a sse rt s, ho we ve r, that F e dCU RE’ s r e qu e st f or inf or matio n is inadequate to merit a fe e wa iver be cause it fails to demonstrate its ability to disseminate the reque sted materia ls to a rea sonably broad se g ment of the public, since its website is a passive distribution s ource , and its newsletter is infreque ntly

published. Def.’ s Mem. at 25-26. The Court ag ain agree s with the plaintiff for the rea sons expl ained be low. In Prison L eg al New s v. L appin, this Court gra nted Prison L eg al New s’ (“ PL N”) motion10

for summary

judgme nt reg ardingthe B OP’s denial of a FOIA fe e wa iver. 436 F . Supp. 2d 17, 27 (D .D .C. 20 06 ). Th e re , PL N c le arl y de mon str ate d th at it

ha d th e a bil ity to d iss e min ate information to the public by havingprovided the B OP with information that 3,400 subscribers
rec eived its printed monthly journal and that it had an ac tual rea dership population of 18,000, alongwith havingan oper ational website. I d. at 19, 26-27. This Court rea ched that conclusion despite the g overnme nt’s challeng e to the viability of the we bsite as a distribution channe l. I d. at 26. Al tho ug h th is C ourt ne ve r u lti mate ly

de c ide d whe the r a

we bs ite is a

su ff ic ie nt m e ans to distribute information in Prison L eg al New s , F e dCU RE r e lie s u po n th is c a se a s further

support that a we bsite, coupled with re ported subscr ibers and a rea dership base , demonstrates a n org anization’s ability

to distribute FOIA re quested mate rial to the public. Pl.’s Opp’n at 30, Prison L eg al New s, 436 F. Supp. 2d at 26-27 ( stating that “with 3,400 repor ted subscribe rs and an estimated r eade rship population of 18,000, PL N ha[d] demonst rate d its abilit y to distribute the printed journal to the public” ). PL N s pe c if ic a lly pr ov ide d th e inf

or matio n a bo ut i ts r e a de rs hip ba se in i ts F OIA r e qu e st. Pr iso n L e g a l N e ws , 4 36 F . Su pp . 2 d at 19 . It a lso state d th at it s
we bs ite su

pp le me nte d a

n a lr e a dy siza ble su bs c ri be r a nd re a de rs hip ba se . I d. He re , F e dCU RE h a s s i m i l ar l y

p r o v i d e d r e a s o n a b l y s p e c i f i c nu m b e r s d e t a i l i n gi t s s u

b s c r i b e r s an d

r e a d e r s h i p . In its appeal letter

to the OI P, FedCURE states: “[Our] website, which pr ovides timely news for the public has bee n up for a

bout two y ear s and has a lrea dy had over 250,000 hits. [ Our] chat site at Yahoo Gr oups had as many as 100 re quests for infor

mation eac h day .” Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. E at 1. Additionally , Fe dCURE emails its newsletter to 2,000 subscriber s. See htt p:/ /w ww .f e dc ur e .o rg/
ne ws le tte r. sh tml
. Th is C ourt

in P ri so n L e g a l N e ws de te rm ine d th at PL N h a d d e mon str ate d it s a

bil ity toA visit to FedCURE’s website ( <http://www.fedc ure.or g /newsletter.shtml>) r evea ls that 3 it relea sed new sletters in April 2003, J une 2003, two volumes in Summer 2005, and ag ain one volume in the Fa ll 2005, March 2006, Oc tober 2006, De cembe r 2006, and June 2007. 11 disseminate the re quested infor mation beca

use it published a newsle tter with a subscr iber population of approximately 3,400, and an a ctual re ader ship population of around 18,000. Prison L eg al New s, 436 F. Supp. 2d at 19, 26-27. F edCURE, in comparison, produc es an online newsletter

with a subscribe r base of 2,000 and a Yahoo c hat g roup with 2,500 subscriber s. See h t t p : // gro u p s . y ah o o . co m/ gro u

p / Fe d C UR E -o rg. Th e inf or matio n p ro vid e d r e g ard ingthe a c tiv ity
on its c hat si te and

we bs ite , c ou

ple d w iththe e sti mate d s ub sc ri be r b a se wh o r e c e ive its newsletter , makes this case fac tually simil ar to Prison L eg al New s, and thus prese nts a strong
case for tre atingFe dCURE’s dissemination efforts a s an ef fec tive means of distributingthe
re qu e ste d in fo rm atio n to a br oa d g ro up of

int e re ste d p e rs on s. Nonethele ss, the BO P contends that Fe dCURE’s and PL N’s abilities to disseminate the
re qu e ste d in fo rm atio n is no t c omp ara ble be c a us e PL N p ub lis he d a

pr int e d jo ur

na l on a monthl y b a s i s , w h e r e a s F e d C U R E p u b l i s h e s i t s o n l i n e n e w s l e t t e r l e s s f r e qu e n t l y. Def

.’s Mem. at 29. 3 Whil e F edCURE may

publish infrequently , that fac t alone does not prove that Fe dCURE cannot disseminate information to a r easona bly broad se ction of the public. Thus, libera lly construing the fe e wa iver provision of the F OIA in the favor of the r equeste r lea ds the Court to the conclusion that F edCURE has the ne cessa ry means to disseminate the r equeste d information to a
rea sonably

broad se g ment of the public. Finally , Fe dCURE’s stature a s the larg est advoc acy g roup for fede ral inmates, Compl.¶ 6 , le nd s c re de nc e to i ts p os iti on that a su bs tanti a l nu

mbe r o f i nd ivi du a ls h ave and wi ll c on tin

ue to
acc ess its newsletters, c hat room ser vices a nd daily news updates. Acc ording ly , for a ll of the
re a so ns outli ne d a

bo ve , th e Court

mus t a g re e that F e dCU RE’ s d iss e min atio n a c tiv ity wo uld12

cause the re quested infor

mation to reac h an audie nce “ rea sonably broad” enoug h to meet the standard r equire d for a

FOIA fe e wa iver. 3. Has F edCURE Demonstrated that Disclosure of the Information Reque sted will Cont ribute “Sig nificantly” to Public Understandingof Gove rnment Op e ratio ns or

Ac tiv iti e s? Finally , satisfac tion of the fourth of the six -par t test require s Fe dCURE to show that the disclosure will contribute sig nificantly to the public’s under standing of g overnme nt operations or activities. To make this showing , Fe dCURE must demonst rate that public knowledg e will be enhanc ed followingthe disclosure. 28 C.F .R. § 16.11 (k)(2) (iv). Exist ing public a vailability

of the information is also weighed whe n deter mining the de g ree of sig nificanc e that will be der ived from the disclosure . For est Guar dians, 416 F.3d at 1181. The B OP argues that disclosure of the information soug ht by the plaintiff will not
c on tr ibute signif

ic antl y to p ub lic un de rs tand ingbe c a us e of the lim ite d numb e r o f i nd ivi du a ls who will rec eive the inf

ormation, and the e ven smaller subse t that will understand it due to the highly technica l nature of

the information. De f.’s Mem. at 31. As support of its positi on, F e dCU RE a lso re lie s u

po n it s argume nts c on c e rn ingwhy dis c los ur e wi ll s ig nif

ic antl y c on tr ibute to public understanding . Pl.’s Opp’n at 32. The Court a g ree s with the plaintiff for the rea sons explained below. In order to prove that the infor

mation reque sted will significa ntly contribute to the public’s under standing of g overnme nt operations or activities, Fe dCURE must s how that the i n f o r m at i o nd i s c l o s e d

w i l l e n h an c e p u

b l i c un d e r s t an d i n go f

th e B O P ’ s u s e o f

i o ns p e c tr o m e tr

y, as opposed to the public’ s understandingof ion spectr ometry prior to the disclosure . As evidenc ed by

the re quests submitt ed to Fe dCURE’s Yahoo c hat g roup, Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. E at 1, public knowledg e of ion spec trometry technolog y

is lim ited. Indeed, “ [i ]nformation reg ardingThe c ourt specif ically noted that the information was not available in public libraries, a s 4 part of the administrative re cord, or on the interne t, but was instead sca ttered throughout c ourt ho us e s in the we ste rn

pa rt of the c ountr

y , in ne ws pa pe r a rt ic le s a nd a ff ida vit s. F or e st Guar dians, 416 F.3d at 1181. 13 the de ta ils of

ion sp e c tr ome tr

y is n ot c ur re ntl y in t he pu bli c do ma in. ” Pl. ’s Op p’ n at 19 . T hu s,
re g ard le ss o f F e dCU RE’ s sp e c if ic pla n f or int e rp re tin gthe inf

or matio n b e fo re dis se min atin git, any dissemination of information reg ardingthe B OP’s use of ion spec trometry will enhance the public’s under standing of the tec hnology beca use, as the pla intiff asser

ts and the def

endant doe s not contest, information re g ardingion spectrometr y is not available to the public. See id. The availability

of the re quested infor

mation prior to disclosure must also consider ed when de termining whether a re quester sa

tisfies the fourth prongof 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(k) (2). For est Guar dians, 416 F.3d at 1181. I n For est Guar dians, the cour t found that wher e information
wa s p ub lic ly

ava ila ble on ly in t he fo rm of va ri ou s uno rg anize d s ourc e s, the plaintiff had 4 satisfied this prongof the six-factor te st beca use they planned to compile the inf ormation and prese nt it on an interac tive website. I d.; see a lso Campbell v. United States Dep’t of Justi ce, 164 F.3d 20, 36 ( D.C. Cir. 1999) (“[T]he mere f act that mate rial is in the public domain does not justify denying a

fee waiver ; only

materia l that has met a thre shold level of public dissemination will not further ‘public unde rstanding ’ within the meaningof the fe e wa iver provisions.”) . Her e, the information re quested is not even in the public doma in; it does not have an e x isting

“ thr e sh old

le ve l of pu bli c dis se min atio n, ” a s th e pu bli c c ur re ntl y ha s n o a c c e ss t o it , a c c or din g ly
curr ent ava ilability

of the infor

mation is not a bar to the plaintiff’ s fee waiver reque st. F e dCU RE d e sir e s to c omp ile c ur re ntl y un pu bli c ize d io n s pe c tr ome tr

y data in o rd e r t o p r o v i d e a c e n tr a l i z e d

s o ur c e o f i n f o r m at i o nf o r f e d e r a l i n m at e s an d

th e i r f am i l i e s . C e rt a i n l y, placingsuch data

on a we bsite, in an online newsletter , or in response to chat quer ies is anThis Memorandum Opinion ac companies a n Orde r that ame nds an ea rlier Or der issued 5 by this Court on S eptember 30, 2008. 14 a c c e pta ble mann e r o f m akin gion sp e c tr ome tr

y data a c c e ssi ble to t

he pu bli c . Su c h d ata

wo uld the n b e ava ila

ble fo r c on sumpt ion

by int e re ste d p art ie s, in c e ntr a lize d a nd e a sil y a c c e ssi ble fo rums, le a din gthe Court to c on c lud e that th e pla int if f h a s satis fi e d th e fo ur

th f a c tor of the te st fo r a sse ssi nga

F OIA f e e wa ive r r e qu e st. IV. Conclusion F or the a fo re me nti on e d r e a so ns , th e De fe nd ant’ s Mo tio n f or Summary

Judg me nt i s DE NI ED
. B e c a

u s e th e C o urta g r e e s th atF e d C U R E h a s s at i s f i e d th e r e qu i r e m e n t s f

o r a F O IA fee waiver , the Court need not a ddress F edCURE’s alter native ar g ument that it is deservingof a fe e re du c tio n at th is t ime . T hu s, the Court wi ll GR ANT , the plaintiff’s c ross-motion for summary judgme nt. SO OR DE RE D on this 18 day

of Mar ch, 2009. th 5

REGGI E B. WAL TON Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge