Opinion ID: 2654933
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: c. foia.

Text: The Act provides that a public body upon receiving a request for any public record “shall within 15 days (except Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) . . . either make the requested public record accessible or notify the person making such request of its determination not to make the requested public record or any part thereof accessible and the reasons therefor.”72 In the present case, the District received FOP‟s request on July 23, 2010. It therefore had until August 13, 2010, to respond as FOIA required. The District met that deadline by producing on that date all the documents in its possession that it deemed to be responsive to FOP‟s request and non-exempt along with a Vaughn index identifying all the responsive documents it had determined to withhold and its reasons for doing so. It is true, as FOP points out, that the District produced additional responsive documents in its Second and Third Productions (as well as a supplemental Vaughn index to additional documents withheld in whole or part from the latter production) after the statutory fifteen-day deadline had passed. FOP argues that these 72 D.C. Code § 2-532 (c) (2012 Repl.). The fifteen-day time limit may be extended by up to ten days in ―unusual circumstances.‖ Id. § 2-532 (d). 34 subsequent productions were untimely. We agree with the trial court that “[t]his argument conflates the statutory requirements of timeliness and sufficiency.” Where the District has responded in good faith to a FOIA request within the time prescribed by the statute, enabling the requestor to seek relief in court for any perceived deficiencies such as the inadequacy of the agency‟s search for responsive documents or the unavailability of a claimed exemption, we think the principal purpose of the statutory deadline has been accomplished and the District has complied with its duty to make a timely response. That the District later discloses more responsive documents, either voluntarily or pursuant to court order, does not mean it has disregarded the Act‟s time provisions.73