Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/DC/prison-legal-news-v-lappin-freedom-of-information-act-bop-lawsuit-ruling-ordering-fee-waiver-2006/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:31:46+00:00

Document:
Prison Legal News v. Lappin, Freedom of Information Act BOP lawsuit ruling ordering fee waiver. 2006.
PRISON LEGAL NEWS, Plaintiff, v. HARLEY G. LAPPIN, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant.
Cross Motion for Summary Judgment ("Pl.'s Reply").
For HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant: Wyneva Johnson, U.S.
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR D.C., Washington, D.C.
JUDGES: REGGIE B. WALTON, United States District Judge.
deny the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester."
of how government facilities are operated.
enhanced" by the release of information to which it already had access. Id.
Ex. 2, the BOP informed PLN that they could appeal the decision to the OIP pursuant to 28 C.F.R.
opinion is the correct provision.
On September 13, 2005, PLN filed this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and an order compelling [**6] the defendants to provide it with all documents responsive to its FOIA requests without any cost.
documents] would be of public interest." Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex.
of accommodating the request was $ 6,944.00 plus copying fees, but this fee could likely be reduced if PLN reformulated its request. Id.
a fee waiver had been properly denied. Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. 4.
to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
non-moving party. Bayer v. Dep't of Treasury, 294 U.S.
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct.
2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
properly denied the PLN [*21] request for a fee waiver.
The Court will address each question in turn.
(A) Who is the Proper Defendant?
("DOJ") is the only proper defendant in this FOIA action.
plaintiff's complaint lists as the defendant "Harley G.
Lappin, Director, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS."
21611, No. 89-2806, 1991 WL 7162, at *9 (D.D.C. Jan.
action are the agencies that allegedly improperly withheld documents."); Whittle v. Moschelle, 756 F. Supp.
BOP, as designated in the text of the complaint. Compl.
cited by the plaintiff provide little useful assistance.
Found. v. Def. Nuclear Facilities Safety Bd., 286 U.S.
substantial independent authority in the exercise of specific functions." Soucie v. David, 145 U.S. App. D.C.
of [**12] Prisons, http: //www. bop. gov/about/index.
proper defendant in this FOIA action.
(B) Is the Plaintiff Entitled to a Fee Waiver?
documents to pay for the search and duplication costs.
situations those costs may be reduced or waived completely. Judicial Watch v. Dep't of Justice, 185 F. Supp.
1483 (citing McClellan Ecological Seepage Situation v.
Carlucci, 835 F.2d 1282, 1284-85 (9th Cir. 1987)).
must concern the "operations or activities"
contribute "significantly" to public understanding of government operations or activities.
Court need only examine whether the PLN request satisfied the second, third, and fourth factors.
overly broad and lacked reasonable specificity. Id. at 7-8.
disseminate the requested records to the general public.
inability to transmit the requested information to the public. Id. at 9.
in the "public domain" within the context of the FOIA.
claiming that the requested documents "related to a number of specific abuses and events at specific institutions"
fees, under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II). Id. at 13-14.
news media. Def.'s Mem. at 8-10.
Justice, 334 U.S. App. D.C. 20, 164 F.3d 20, 36 (D.C.
of the requested documents are not publicly available.
Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. 4 ("[A] portion of the records requested .
public's ability to discover those particular cases. See, e.
Indelicato v. Suarez, 207 F. Supp. 2d 216 (S.D.N.Y.
ECF system began in May of 2002 and still continues.
(3) Was the PLN Request Reasonably Specific?
258 U.S. App. D.C. 302, 811 F.2d 644, 647 (D.C. Cir.
findings of fact concerning conflicts-of-interest by . . .
IRS Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti." 356 U.S. App.
custody of his biological father in Cuba'. . . ." 133 F.
scrutiny" was "perfunctory" and "too ephemeral to satisfy the reasonable specificity standard." Id. at 54.
information contained in those records. Pl.'s Opp'n, Exs.
limited to the record that was before the agency.
the agency, and therefore, this Court cannot consider them.
(4) Does PLN Have the Intent and Ability to Disseminate The Requested Records to the General Public?
disseminate the requested information to the public."
Larson, the plaintiff stated an intent to distribute requested information to a "major newspaper company."
id. at 1483 n. 5.
will supply the information that he has received to organizations which can widely disseminate it to the relevant public . . ." entitled the plaintiff to a fee waiver. Id.
a represented readership of "thousands each month,"
granted and the defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.
n6 An Order consistent with the Court's ruling accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 § 552
 v.