Opinion ID: 454902
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Summary Judgment on the Counterclaim.

Text: 21 The district court also granted summary judgment for EPA on its counterclaim for declaratory relief, holding that the EPA has no duty under the FOIA to answer questions unrelated to a request for documents, and it has no duty to create documents. The court also noted: 22 Because this is an FOIA case, I am not going to make a ruling with respect to any duty [that] defendant may have under any other statute to respond to inquiries by plaintiff. Whether there is a duty under other statutes is not before the Court and cannot be raised in this FOIA action. 23 Zemansky disputes the judgment on the counterclaim on two grounds. First he maintains that the EPA sought to avoid obligations it has to answer questions under several statutes and regulations other than the FOIA. While there originally was some dispute over the breadth of the declaratory relief that EPA was seeking, EPA clarified its counterclaim in argument before the district court, requesting only a statement of its obligations under FOIA. In any event, the district court limited its ruling to a statement of EPA's FOIA duties, so Zemansky's contentions based on other statutes, the effect of which the district court stated it was not determining, are misguided. 24 Zemansky alternatively argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to decide the issue because there was no case or controversy between the parties on the issue of the EPA's obligation to answer questions under the FOIA. Zemansky contends that he, in fact, had never contended that EPA had a duty 'under FOIA ' to answer questions unrelated to document requests.... (Emphasis is Zemansky's.) However, the issue was framed by the pleadings. In his reply to the EPA counterclaim, Zemansky states: 25 Defendant EPA has a duty to respond to questions and provide information in addition to reasonably described agency records, which duty is provided by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, the First Amendment thereof, and the laws, statutes, and regulations under which defendant EPA operates, including but not limited to The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553.... 26 (Emphasis added.) 27 As the passage demonstrates, disagreement existed over the requirements of the FOIA. Zemansky's second objection to the ruling, thus, also must fail. 3
28 Finally, Zemansky attacks those portions of the ruling requiring that his future requests be in a separate document which is clearly defined as an FOIA request and not intertwined with non-FOIA matters. Although this is a sensible requirement to avoid future controversies of this nature between the parties and could well serve as a voluntary pattern for the future, the district court did exceed its judicial authority in requiring Zemansky's requests to be in a form different from that of any other person requesting information under the FOIA. The FOIA requires only that the request (1) reasonably describe the records and (2) comply with agency criteria for requests. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(a)(3). The EPA regulation prescribing the form that FOIA requests are to take states: A request shall be made in writing, shall reasonably describe the records sought in a way that will permit their identification and location, and should be addressed to one of the addresses set forth in Sec. 2.106, but otherwise need not be in any particular form. 40 C.F.R. Sec. 2.108. The method for seeking information under the FOIA is prescribed by Congress in the statute and by the EPA in its regulations; if more specific requirements are to be placed on the form of request, they must be made applicable to all by appropriate regulations by the EPA. The district court exceeded its authority in mandating special requirements for Zemansky. III