Case Detail
Case Title | GERHARD v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2016cv01090 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2016-06-13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2017-07-11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Randolph D. Moss | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | JASON GERHARD | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Jason Gerhard, a prison reporter, submitted a FOIA request to the Bureau of Prisons for donation records and records related to the contract for the copying machine in the prison law library. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request. The agency told Gerhard that it had already disclosed the donation records to him and that it could not process his request concerning the copying machine without a contract number. Gerhard appealed to the Office of Information Policy, which upheld the agency's decision. Gerhard then filed suit. Complaint issues: Litigation - Recovery of Costs | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [15] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Randolph Moss has ruled that the Bureau of Prisons fully responded to prisoner Jason Gerhard's request for a copy of the contract for inmate copying services and donations made to FCI Fairton, but because the agency did not locate an additional eight pages pertaining to the donations until after he filed suit, Gerhard is entitled to costs. BOP told Gerhard that it did not have a contract as such but that inmates were allowed to buy cards they could use to pay for copies. Although the donation reports are supposed to be filed with the agency's Ethics Office, that office was not searched until after Gerhard brought suit. Moss agreed the agency had explained the non-existence of the copying contract and found Gerhard had not requested information about copy cards. Moss found Gerhard had substantially prevailed, pointing out that "the fact that the BOP initially failed to search for the missing records in the office designated to receive them suggests that the BOP needed additional prodding â€" and not just additional time â€" to comply with Gerhard's request. BOP claimed that Gerhard had failed to show that his claims were "not insubstantial." Moss noted that "because BOP provides no further analysis on this point, it is difficult to know what the BOP means by this. But, in any event, to the extent that this statutory language imposes requirements beyond those of the catalyst theory, those requirements are 'lenient' and demand less than 'that a plaintiff's claim be correct on the merits.' That standard is easily met here." Moss found that Gerhard's use of information he received as the result of FOIA requests on his website made him a prison journalist of sorts. Finding the agency was required to reimburse Gerhard for his costs, Moss noted that "given Gerhard's indigent status, this case seems to present the type of situation in which court costs impose substantial barriers to the FOIA requestor's access to the documents."
Issues: Litigation - Recovery of Costs | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|