Case Detail
Case Title | CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2009cv00633 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2009-04-06 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2009-11-19 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Richard W. Roberts | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [8] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Richard Roberts has ruled that CREW failed to exhaust administrative remedies when it filed a FOIA suit against the Federal Reserve before the 20-day time limit had expired. CREW asked for expedited processing when on Mar. 3 it sent its request for records of loans or other financial assistance from March 2008 to the present made under Section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act. On Mar. 6, the agency responded, acknowledging receipt of the request, but did not indicate its decision concerning expedition. CREW received the agency's letter Mar. 9. Because it had not received a substantive response to its request by Mar. 31, CREW filed suit on Apr. 6. But the agency notified CREW on Mar. 31 that it was extending the response time by another 10 days. This letter, postmarked Apr. 2, was not received by CREW until Apr. 6. The agency then responded to CREW's request on Apr. 14, saying it would provide some information, but withholding 11,000 pages under Exemption 4 (confidential business information) and Exemption 5 (privileges). The agency sent the responsive records on Apr. 17. CREW argued that it had constructively exhausted its administrative remedies when the agency failed to respond within 20 business days. The agency responded that it had notified CREW that it would take a 10-day extension because of a need to consult with other components of the Board. CREW acknowledged receiving the letter, but argued it arrived on Apr. 6, the same day it filed suit. Roberts took exception with CREW's claim that the Apr. 6 date was dispositive. Instead, he noted that "CREW does not provide any authority for the proposition that the operative date of the Board's response should be determined by the date that CREW received it, as opposed to the date that the Board sent it. Regardless whether the date of March 31, 2009, or the date of April 2, 2009, is used as the date that the Board is deemed to have sent the letter, the Board 'responded' by placing in the mail written notice regarding its ten-day working extension of its deadline to respond to CREW's request before CREW filed this action. Administrative exhaustion, then, was still a prerequisite to maintaining a suit. It would be contrary to orderly procedure and good administration of FOIA cases to entertain a suit filed prematurely and to excuse CREW from having to exhaust its administrative remedies in this case."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to Exhaust | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|