Case Detail
| Case Title | Atlasware, LLC v. Social Security Administration | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | Western District of Arkansas | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Fayetteville | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 5:2016cv05063 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2016-03-15 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2016-07-07 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Honorable Timothy L. Brooks | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | Atlasware, LLC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Atlasware submitted a FOIA request to the Social Security Administration for records showing the names and business addresses of attorneys and non-attorneys representing social security disability claimants who are not eligible for direct payment. The agency denied the request on the basis of Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). Atlasware appealed, but the agency's denial was upheld on appeal. Atlasware then filed suit. Complaint issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees, Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Social Security Administration | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [20] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Arkansas has ruled that Atlasware does not have standing to bring a lawsuit against the Social Security Administration because the request was made by its attorney, who never identified Atlasware as his client until he sought mediation services from OGIS. Ed Goldner made a FOIA request to the SSA for records of all attorneys currently representing clients in ongoing social security disability claims and all non-attorney representatives representing clients in ongoing social security disability claims that were not eligible for direct payment. The request was typed on Goldner's letterhead. The agency disclosed 1,221 pages, redacting some information. Goldner appealed the redactions and the agency disclosed more information. Goldner then appealed to OGIS and told the mediator there by email that "my client, Atlasware, LLC, has been waiting for this information for years." Atlasware then filed suit in the Western District of Arkansas. The agency defended the suit by arguing that Atlasware did not have standing because it was not the requesting party. Atlasware argued that the disclosure of its role as the client was sufficiently revealed in the email sent to OGIS. Finding Atlasware did not have standing, the court noted that "Mr. Goldner sent the email after he had already filed his initial FOIA request and appealed the partial denial of that request. Thus irrespective of the passing mention of Atlasware in Mr. Goldner's ex post facto email, it was Mr. Goldner, not Atlasware, who made the 'request for information under the FOIA' and it was Mr. Goldner's, not Atlasware's, request that 'the petitioned agency denied.'. . .Mr. Goldner alone 'has standing to pursue this case.'" In an attempt to cure this problem, Atlasware asked the court to amend its complaint to include Goldner as a plaintiff. The court rejected the attempt to amend, noting that "Atlasware seeks leave not to cure a defective allegation of jurisdiction, but instead to cure a defect in the jurisdictional facts themselves; namely, to create subject-matter jurisdiction where none otherwise exists by adding a plaintiff with standing." Although it acknowledged that Atlasware's lack of standing was sufficient to dismiss the case, the court went on to address Atlasware's contention that Goldner, whose office was located in the Western District of Texas, could refile the case in the Western District of Arkansas because the SSA had offices in the Western District and because the records were accessible through cloud computing their location was no longer a determinative factor. Pointing out that venue under FOIA was appropriate either where the plaintiff was located, where the records were located, or in the District of Columbia, the court explained that "the relevant part of this section [on jurisdiction] was undoubtedly included to inform courts and litigants where causes of action under the FOIA could be brought. . .Atlasware's conception of where electronically stored agency records are 'situated' would completely defeat this statutory role." The court indicated that the SSA and many other agencies had multiple offices throughout the country and observed that "Atlasware's construction in light of this fact would transform [FOIA's jurisdictional requirements] from a provision instructing courts and litigants that their FOIA venue options are limited, to one that opens the doors to nearly every district court in the country. Moreover, it would render [FOIA's jurisdictional provision's] other three venue clausesâ€"the residency, place of business, and District of Columbia clausesâ€"largely superfluous."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Standing, Litigation - Jurisdiction - Proper Party | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
