Case Detail
Case Title | YANOFSKY v. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2016cv00951 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2016-05-19 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2018-03-30 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | DAVID YANOFSKY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Journalist Daniel Yanofsky submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Commerce for data related to Form I-92 and Form I-94, which contains statistical information about the number of travelers from abroad to the U.S and air traffic between the U.S. and other countries. The agency denied Yanofsky's request because the records were available for purchase from the National Travel and Tourism Office, which the agency contended was a superseding fee statute that displaced FOIA access. Yanofsky appealed that decision, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Yanofsky filed suit. Complaint issues: Public Interest Fee Waiver, Fee Category - Media or Educational, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Complaint attachment 6 Complaint attachment 7 Complaint attachment 8 Complaint attachment 9 Complaint attachment 10 Complaint attachment 11 Complaint attachment 12 Complaint attachment 13 Complaint attachment 14 Complaint attachment 15 Complaint attachment 16 Opinion/Order [28] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has ruled that the Department of Commerce failed to show that a combination of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 established an independent fee-setting mechanism that supersedes the fee provisions in FOIA under § 552(a)(4)(A)(vi). David Yanofsky, a journalist with Quartz, an online publication of the Atlantic Monthly Group, requested records from Commerce concerning the number of visitors and international flights to the United States. The agency told Yanoksky the information was available as part of a subscription service used by a number of institutional clients which had its own fee structure under the MECEA and the annual appropriations acts. As a result, the agency told Yanofsky that the data would cost $173,775. The agency denied Yanoksky's request for a fee waiver and Yanoksky filed suit. Because the agency did not flesh out its argument pertaining to the statutory basis for its claim that the MECEA constituted a superseding fee-setting mechanism until after Yanoksky filed suit, he argued that the agency was now prohibited from amplifying its claim because it was restricted to the administrative record before the agency at the time of the decision. But Jackson noted that "this Court disagrees with Yanofsky's analysis of the implication of section 552(a)(4)(A)(vii) for one simple reason: while it is certainly true that a court's review 'is limited' to the facts submitted to the agency, and that 'the agency must stand on whatever reasons for denial it gave in the administrative proceeding,' there is a world of difference between providing new reasons for the agency's decision at the district court stage and merely refining the same legal arguments that the parties advanced in the proceedings below." She indicated that "any fair reading of the arguments that DOC now makes compel the conclusion that its current position is a mere refinement of the legal argument that DOC has advanced ever since Yanofsky filed suit." She added that "the DOC 's present assertion that the MECEA and the Appropriations Act qualify as the pertinent superseding statute implicates considerations of law that this Court must evaluate by virtue of DOC's persistent contention that the FOIA's displacement provision applies. It makes little sense for this Court to be stuck analyzing the legal effect of a statutory provision that the DOC has long since abandoned, and while any such analysis is necessarily substantively different than the one conducted during the administrative process, the Court is still evaluating displacement as a matter of law â€" not a new or different reason for the denial of Yanoksky's fee waiver in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(vii)." Having decided that the agency was able to make its claim that the MECEA and the Consolidated Appropriations Act superseded the FOIA fee provisions, Jackson concluded that the statute did not qualify under the D.C. Circuit's holding in Oglesby v. Dept of Army, 79 F.3d 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1996). In Oglesby, the National Archives claimed that 44 U.S.C. § 2116(c) displaced FOIA's fee provisions. The D.C. Circuit agreed, finding that it both set "the level of fees" and described "particular types of records." By contrast, the MECEA only encouraged foreign governments, international organizations, and other identified groups to make contributions, including the assessment of fees. Jackson pointed out that "this silence regarding how the fees are to be calculated stands in stark contrast to the statutes that the D.C. Circuit and Congress have acknowledged as superseding fee-setting statutes within the meaning of the FOIA." She explained that those statutes "demonstrate that a proper superseding fee statute reflects Congress's intent as it relates specifically to the agency's task of setting the level of fees for records. Neither the MECEA nor the Appropriations Act speaks to how the DOC's fees with respect to its data need to be determined, and thus this Court concludes that those statutes do not qualify as laws that supersede the fees provided for in the FOIA."
Issues: Fees - Commitment to pay | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|