Opinion ID: 1991224
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Public Benefit

Text: The first factor is whether any public benefit was derived from Stromberg's limited success. The Circuit Court held that there was no public benefit. Stromberg urges that such a finding is erroneous as a matter of law, because there is always some public benefit from judicial enforcement of the PIA, from requiring government agencies to comply with the law. In its conception, every judicial victory would place the applicant at least on first base and more likely on second. It is true, of course, in a very general way, that the public is ordinarily benefitted whenever a government agency is required by a court to follow the law, but, as most courts have made clear, that is not the focus of provisions like § 552(a)(4)(E) of FOIA or SG § 10-623(f). See Blue v. Bureau of Prisons, 570 F.2d 529, 533-34 (5th Cir.1978); Fenster v. Brown, 617 F.2d 740, 744-45 (D.C.Cir.1979); Aviation Data Service v. F.A.A., 687 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (10th Cir.1982); Simon v. United States, 587 F.Supp. 1029, 1032 (D.D.C.1984); Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy, Inc. v. Costle, 631 F.Supp. 1469, 1471 (D.D.C. 1986). The Blue court explained that, although doubtless true that the successful FOIA plaintiff necessarily acts in some degree for the benefit of the public by bringing the Government into compliance with FOIA and securing to the public the benefits presumed to flow from public disclosure of government information, the Senate Report's reference to disclosure to the press and public interest organizations in its discussion of that criterion, strongly suggest[ed] that in weighing this factor a court should take into account the degree of dissemination and likely public impact that might be expected from a particular disclosure.  Blue v. Bureau of Prisons, supra, 570 F.2d at 533 (emphasis added). Thus, the court continued, this factor rather speaks for an award where the complainant's victory is likely to add to the fund of information that citizens may use in making vital political choices. Id. at 534. The Fenster court followed that approach as well. Notwithstanding the Senate Judiciary Committee's reference to requests made by news and public interest organizations, we do not believe that the public interest criterion was intended to be, or should be, limited to requests made by those kinds of bodies. The focus of this criterion, which, of course, is not itself determinative but must be balanced against the others, should rather be on the nature of the information requested and, to some extent, although this implicates the third criterion as well, what use the requester intends to and does make of it. The record here indicates that there was public interest in the delays and cost overruns with respect to the Student Union renovation project. Stories appeared in the public press and in the University's student newspaper regarding the matter, and one or more articles noted this Court's decision in Stromberg I. There is nothing in the record, however, to show that Stromberg, or anyone else, ever disseminated, or intended to disseminate, either to the news media or otherwise to the public generally, the composite numbers in the AEC Reports that Stromberg was ultimately successful in obtaining, or that any segment of the public, other than Stromberg, ever indicated any interest in learning of or using those numbers for any public purpose. On this record, therefore, it seems apparent that Stromberg wanted and used the information entirely for its own purpose and that there really was no public benefit from the actual disclosure of the AEC numbers beyond the general public benefit presumably accruing from any disclosure required by a court.