Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/DC/prison-legal-news-v-district-of-columbia-public-records-lawsuit-complaint-2008/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:18:43+00:00

Document:
Prison Legal News v. District of Columbia, public records lawsuit complaint. 2008.
ofInformation Act (D.C. FOIA) without the charging of fees.
required to be maintained under D.C. Code §2-536(b).
understanding of how the District of Columbia's prison system is run and managed.
in electronic format would eliminate copying expenses.
disclosure of the requested information without the charging of fees.
1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to D.C. Code §2-537(a)(l)(D.C.
FOIA) and §11-921 (civil jurisdiction).
the laws of Washington State, with its headquarters in the State of Washington.
constitutes the local government of the District of Columbia.
(OAG) is an agency within the executive branch of the District of Columbia government.
maintains a website that receives around 85,000 visitors per month.
8. PLN, a § 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, is small and underfunded.
attorney fee awards, sanctions and special master fees by the DC DOC."
states the payout amount, case number and caption, parties, etc."
documents be provided in electronic format ifthey are available electronically."
13. PLN is "a representative of the news media," as that term is used in D.C. Code § 2-532(b1)(2).
well D.C. DOC programs address inmate concerns.
or expenditure of public or other funds by public bodies." D.C. Code §2-536(a)(6).
19. The OAG did not represent or suggest that the underlying documents were unavailable.
page for each page of a document you wish to take with you." rd.
22. The cost of twenty-five cents per page does not constitute the direct costs of duplication.
23. Twenty five cents per page exceeds the direct costs of duplication.
sanctions from January I, 2000 to December 31, 2007."
similar to the documents requested from the OAG.
28. The OAG responded to PLN's March 3, 2008 letter in an E-mail dated March 4,2008.
and supporting documents to Thorn Pozen, FOIA Officer for the OAG.
the reasons therefore in writing within 10 days of the submission of such appeal. D.C.
33. PLN has not received any response to its FOIA appeal.
thereafter pursuant to 1 DCMR § 412.10.
appeal, nor has it responded to PLN's May 1, 2008 letter.
information." D.C. Official Code § 2-531.
the Internet or by other electronic means. D.C. Official Code § 2-536(b).
news media for records that are not sought for commercial use. D.C. Code § 2-532(b1)(2).
strictly limited to the actual and "direct" costs of duplication. D.C. Code § 2-532(b-1)(4).
the agency's interest or in the interest ofthe public. 1 DCMR § 408.9 (emphasis added).
purposes and this request is not primarily in the commercial interest ofPLN.
public interest in its decision to deny PLN's request for a fee waiver.
Correspondence Unit has denied PLN's appeal. 1 DCMR § 412.10.
specifically the history ofthe DOC's payments of taxpayer funds for misconduct.
request on the basis, that such waiver is not in the public interest. See D.C. Code §2532(b).
with D.C. FOrA as alleged herein.
right to judicial review of this denial. D.C. Official Code § 2-537(a)(1).
General pursuant to the D.C. FOIA.
54. Plaintiff has properly requested a waiver of fees relating to its D.C. FOIA request.
public interest in its decision to deny plaintiffs request for a fee waiver.
purported basis that the plaintiffs request for a fee waiver was not in the public interest.
fee waiver pursuant to the D.C. FOIA.
after November 1, 2001 available on the Internet or by other electronic means. D.C.
information enumerated in D.C. Code §2-536.
64. The GAG has failed to maintain these records in electronic format.
effectively eradicated under the statute, relating to the production of public information.
the extent of actual and "direct" costs with duplication.
... maybe recovered." D.C. Code §2-532 (b-l)(4).
duplication may be recovered." See 1 DCMR §408.1.
charges only to "the direct cost ofthe services or materials." 1 DCMR §408.2.
statute, that only direct duplication costs should be charged. See 1 DCMR §408.1 (c).
72. The charge of $ .25 per page is in excess of actual and direct costs for duplication.
Grant such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

References: v. 
 §2
 §2
 §11
 § 501
 § 2
 §2
 § 412
 § 2
 § 2
 § 2
 § 2
 § 408
 § 412
 §2532
 § 2
 §2
 §2
 §408
 §408
 §408