Case Detail
| Case Title | SMALLWOOD v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2016cv01654 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2016-08-16 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2017-07-19 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Christopher R. Cooper | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | WILLIAM H. SMALLWOOD, JR. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | William Smallwood submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice for records concerning the settlement of a class action suit brought against the U.S. by native farmers. The agency told Smallwood that his request was complex and would take time to process. He appealed that designation, but the agency rejected his appeal since there was no adverse action yet. Smallwood then filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Adequacy - Search, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Complaint attachment 6 Complaint attachment 7 Opinion/Order [15] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Christopher Cooper has joined several district court judges in the D.C. Circuit in concluding that only the requester of records has standing to bring suit under FOIA, even if the requester indicates before the suit is filed that the request was made on behalf of a third party. Sunni Harris, the attorney for William Smallwood, submitted a request to the Justice Department in her name for records concerning a class action settlement in which Smallwood was a party. The Office of Information Policy told Harris that her request fell within the unusual circumstances exception. Harris filed an administrative appeal of that decision, noting that the request was "created on behalf of William H. Smallwood." The agency told Harris that it did not consider unusual circumstances constituted an adverse determination subject to appeal. As a result, Harris' only remedy was to sue. Instead, Smallwood sued himself, at which time the agency claimed he did not have standing because he was not the requester. Reviewing the case law on the issue, Cooper agreed with the agency that Smallwood did not have standing because he was not the requester of the records. Cooper noted that "courts routinely dismiss FOIA suits where an attorney filed the initial request without indicating that the request was made on behalf of the plaintiff. Although such a rule might seem somewhat rigid, 'a line must be drawn to assure that the "request" requirement does not devolve into a general interest inquiry' that would be at odds with both the Constitution's standing requirement and the intent of Congress in enacting FOIA." Cooper explained that "the FOIA request at issue in this case clearly indicates that Smallwood's attorney is the requester. The 'Request Description' portion of the request, moreover, does not indicate that the request was made on behalf of any client, let alone Smallwood. In fact, his name does not appear anywhere in the request." Cooper added that "while Smallwood's attorney might have standing to pursue her FOIA request in federal court, Smallwood himself 'has not made a formal request within the meaning the statute' and therefore lacks standing to do so." Smallwood argued that his connection to the request was explained in the administrative appeal. But Cooper pointed out that made no difference. He noted that "but 'the elucidation of [an attorney-client] relationship on appeal does not change the nature of the request itself.' A contrary rule 'would [do] nothing to prohibit a party from piggy-backing onto an existing request at any point in the administrative and/or judicial process. Such was not the intent of Congress.'"
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Standing, Litigation - Jurisdiction - Proper Party | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
