Case Detail
| Case Title | Aguirre v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission et al | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | Southern District of California | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | San Diego | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 3:2019cv00495 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2019-03-14 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2020-02-19 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Cynthia Bashant | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | Michael J. Aguirre | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Michael Aguirre submitted FOIA requests to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for records concerning the storage of nuclear waste at a beach near San Diego. The agency acknowledged receipt of the requests, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Aguirre filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | DOES 1 to 10 inclusive | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Appeal | Ninth Circuit 20-55177 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [24] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in California has ruled that attorney Michael Aguirre failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing three separate FOIA suits against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for not responding to his requests pertaining to an incident at a nuclear facility outside San Diego. In the first case, Aguirre made two requests for technical details about the misalignment incident. He also agreed to pay up to $1,500 in costs. The agency classified him as a commercial requester and told him that he would need to provide an advance payment before the agency would process the requests. In response to the agency's email, Aguirre's law partner Maria Severson sent a letter threatening to file suit unless the agency committed to expediting the requests. Although the agency claimed to have sent a letter acknowledging receipt of the appeal, District Court Judge Cynthia Bashant indicated that the letter was not in the court records. However, the agency emailed Aguirre asking him to clarify the request, which might have an effect on the determining fees. The agency subsequently told Aguirre that it was aggregating his two requests for fee purposes and that because it had not heard back regarding an advance payment, it was administratively closing the requests. Several weeks later, Aguirre filed suit. Citing Oglesby v. Dept of Army, 920 F.2d 56 (D.C. Cir. 1990), in which the D.C. Circuit ruled that a requester was required to appeal an agency's tardy response if the agency had actually responded before the requester filed suit, Bashant noted that Oglesby applied here. She pointed out that "by the time Plaintiff filed his suit, he had been in communication with the NRC for a few months." She observed that "it would have been easy and straightforward for Plaintiff to respond to the NRC, simply stating that he did not believe he was required to pay a fee to clarify his FOIA request. Instead, he turned to the court." Aguirre focused on the alleged misconduct of the agency in the underlying incident. But Bashant noted that 'this is irrelevant. The allegation of what the NRC is doing wrong (i.e., why Plaintiff requested documents through FOIA in the first place), is separate and apart from any evidence that Plaintiff should be permitted to evade administrative exhaustion." Bashant found the agency acted appropriately in requiring Aguirre to make an advance payment before it would process his request. She noted that "while it is true that Plaintiff agreed ahead of time to pay up to $1,500 in fees, that does not mean that the NRC was not within its rights to request Plaintiff follow up on this assertion and have him pay the $563.60 before it began working on Plaintiff's request." She added that "it is undisputed that Plaintiff did not pay the advance fee. He did not inform the NRC that he believed he was not required to pay that fee, nor did he request a fee waiver. Because he has not paid the required fee, he has not exhausted his administrative remedies." She found that Aguirre's failure to respond to the NRC's request for clarification of his other request meant he had failed to perfect his request. Bashant pointed out that "Plaintiff responding to the email rather than filing suit would have avoided unnecessary court intervention. His actions evade the purpose of administrative exhaustion and did not give the NRC a full opportunity to evaluate his request."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to Exhaust, Fees - Commitment to pay, Fees - Advance Payment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
