Case Detail
Case Title | Gray v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Maryland | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Greenbelt | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 8:2016cv01792 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2016-05-25 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2017-02-08 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Deborah K. Chasanow | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | Jim Gray | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Jim Gray submitted a FOIA request to the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority for records concerning an incident in which he was stopped in Maryland and ticketed by two Metro Transit police officers. The agency responded to his request, but redacted personal information from the records. Gray complained that under Maryland law the names of police officers who issue a citation must be on the ticket. Gray then filed suit. Complaint issues: Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appeal | Fourth Circuit 17-1299 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [11] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Maryland has ruled that Jim Gray failed to exhaust his administrative remedies when he did not appeal the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's assessment of a $252 fee for records concerning an incident in which WMATA police allegedly improperly stopped Gray. Gray requested the records under the Maryland Public Information Act and WMATA agreed to process his request under its Public Access to Records Policy, modeled after the federal FOIA. WMATA responded to Gray's request with a fee estimate of $252 and told Gray that if it did not hear from Gray within 30 days it would close his request. Instead, Gray filed suit under FOIA. The court pointed out that "WMATA is not a federal agency, but rather an interstate compact. . ." Nevertheless, the court decided to analyze Gray's request under the PARP. Gray argued that because WMATA had failed to respond within the appropriate time limits he had constructively exhausted the requirement the he appeal. Rejecting that argument, the court noted that "plaintiff did not commence his litigation immediately, however, and this type of 'constructive exhaustion' is only valid 'so long as the agency has not cured its violation by responding before the requester files suit.' Therefore, even if Defendant violated the PARP timing provisions as Plaintiff indicates, Plaintiff was still required to file an administrative appeal once Defendant sent its responsive letter [before Gray filed suit]."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to Exhaust, Agency - Independent authority | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|