Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Amit Mehta has ruled that Cato Institute researcher Patrick Eddington failed to show that 14 components of the Department of Defense received his FOIA request. Eddington emailed his requests to the FOIA acceptance email address as identified on the component's website. He made a PDF of each request, reflecting the date, time, and email address for each component, plus the request itself as an attachment. None of the emails bounced back and there were no other indications that the emails had failed. However, after Eddington filed suit, DOD indicated that none of the components had a record of having received his requests. DOD told Mehta that standard agency practice in response to receiving a FOIA request was to send an acknowledgement by email. Eddington did not claim to have received an acknowledgment from any of the components. Nevertheless, Eddington argued that his record of having sent the requests was sufficient to place the burden of proof on the agency. Mehta noted that "while this evidence supports Plaintiff's genuinely held belief that he properly sent the FOIA requests, it does not create a genuine dispute of fact as to whether any DOD component received a request." Mehta observed that "the court agrees with Defendant that 'Plaintiff's evidence is equivalent to saving a copy of a letter and mailing evidence for a request sent via U.S. Mail.' Such evidence, without more, does not create a genuine dispute of material fact as to an agency's actual receipt of a FOIA request. This is particularly true here, where Plaintiff sent individual requests to fourteen different email addresses of fourteen different DOD components. The court finds it quite improbable that, if Plaintiff in fact sent that many separate requests, that at least one DOD component would not have located evidence of receipt or acknowledgment of receipt. That no DOD component found such evidence is strong, if not conclusive, proof of non-receipt, which Plaintiff cannot overcome with mere copies of his requests." Eddington argued that Schoenman v. FBI, 2006 WL 1126813 (D.D.C. 20006), held that a stamped envelope could show proof of transmittal. Mehta, however, disagreed, noting that "a copy of a stamped envelope, without more, would not suffice to overcome an agency's sworn declaration of non-receipt. A stamped envelope is, at most, proof of transmittal, it does not by itself create a genuine dispute of fact as to actual receipt."
Issues: Request - Receipt

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2020-02-14	1	COMPLAINT against U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number ADCDC-6832428) filed by PATRICK EDDINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Summons)(Burday, Joshua) (Entered: 02/14/2020)
2020-02-14	2	NOTICE of Appearance by Joshua Hart Burday on behalf of PATRICK EDDINGTON (Burday, Joshua) (Entered: 02/14/2020)
2020-02-14	3	NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew Topic on behalf of PATRICK EDDINGTON (Topic, Matthew) (Entered: 02/14/2020)
2020-02-14		Case Assigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta. (adh, ) (Entered: 02/14/2020)
2020-02-14	4	SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachment: # 1 Notice and Consent)(adh, ) (Entered: 02/14/2020)
2020-03-25	5	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE served on 2/24/2020 (Burday, Joshua) (Entered: 03/25/2020)
2020-03-25	6	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 2/27/2020. (Burday, Joshua) (Entered: 03/25/2020)
2020-03-25	7	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 2/26/2020. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 3/27/2020. (Burday, Joshua) (Entered: 03/25/2020)
2020-03-27	8	NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel Patrick Schaefer on behalf of U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Schaefer, Daniel) (Entered: 03/27/2020)
2020-03-27	9	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schaefer, Daniel) (Entered: 03/27/2020)
2020-03-30		MINUTE ORDER granting 9 Defendant's Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant's deadline to answer the complaint is extended until April 27, 2020. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 03/30/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
2020-03-30		Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 4/27/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
2020-04-27	10	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schaefer, Daniel) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
2020-04-28	11	ORDER granting 10 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant shall file its motion to dismiss on or before June 10, 2020; Plaintiff shall file his opposition on or before July 10, 2020; and Defendant shall file its reply on or before July 31, 2020. See attached Order for further details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 04/28/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered: 04/28/2020)
2020-04-28		Set/Reset Deadlines: Motion to Dismiss due by 6/10/2020. Opposition due by 7/10/2020. Reply due by 7/31/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 04/29/2020)
2020-06-10	12	MOTION for Summary Judgment by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Schaefer, Daniel) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
2020-07-07	13	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Briefing Schedule by PATRICK EDDINGTON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Burday, Joshua) (Entered: 07/07/2020)
2020-07-08	14	ORDER granting 13 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition shall be filed on or before August 10, 2020; Defendant's combined opposition and reply shall be filed on or before September 9, 2020; and Plaintiff's reply shall be filed on or before September 30, 2020. See the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 07/08/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
2020-07-08		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Opposition and Cross-Motion due by 8/10/2020. Defendant's Reply and Opposition due by 9/9/2020. Plaintiff's Reply due by 9/30/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 07/09/2020)
2020-08-10	15	Memorandum in opposition to re 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by PATRICK EDDINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Opposition to Statement of Facts, # 2 Declaration Decl of Eddington, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Topic, Matthew) (Entered: 08/10/2020)
2020-09-09	16	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schaefer, Daniel) (Entered: 09/09/2020)
2020-09-10		MINUTE ORDER granting 16 Defendant's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. Defendant's reply in support of its motion for summary judgment shall now be due on or before September 23, 2020. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 09/10/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered: 09/10/2020)
2020-09-10		Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply due by 9/23/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 09/10/2020)
2020-09-23	17	REPLY to opposition to motion re 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. (Schaefer, Daniel) (Entered: 09/23/2020)
2021-01-18		MINUTE ORDER. The parties shall appear for a telephonic status hearing on January 21, 2021, at 10:30 a.m. The courtroom deputy will circulate dial-in information to counsel. Members of the public may access the hearing by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. The public access line will be muted and should only be used by non-participating parties. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 1/18/2021. (lcapm2) (Entered: 01/18/2021)
2021-01-21		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Status Conference held on 1/21/2021 via teleconference. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 01/21/2021)
2021-01-25	18	MEMORANDUM OPINION re: 12 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Please see the attached Memorandum Opinion for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 1/25/2021. (lcapm2) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
2021-01-25	19	ORDER: For the reasons stated in the 18 Memorandum Opinion, the court grants Defendant's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment. Please see the attached Order for further details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 1/25/2021. (lcapm2) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
2021-03-22	20	NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 19 Order by PATRICK EDDINGTON. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number ADCDC-8319160. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Burday, Joshua) (Entered: 03/22/2021)
Hide Docket Events