Sharpe v. Federal Highway Administration
Filing
8
ORDER GRANTING 6 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; denying as moot 4 Motion to Obtain Electronic Case Filing Authorization. Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. This file is closed. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (REM, Case Administrator) (Service of Notice on parties not registered as users of the Court CM/ECF system accomplished via USPS mail.)
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
1
May 08, 2024
2
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
6
7
LOGAN SHARPE,
8
9
10
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
v.
NO. 2:24-CV-0045-TOR
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
UNITED STATES FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6).
14
This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. The Court has
15
reviewed the record and files herein and is fully informed. For the reasons
16
discussed below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED.
17
18
BACKGROUND
This matter arises out of a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request
19
propounded on the Defendant, the United States Federal Highway Administration
20
(“FHWA”) by Plaintiff. FHWA represents that Plaintiff made several separate
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DIMISS ~ 1
1
requests for correspondence production. The first was September 5, 2023, in
2
which Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to FHWA employee Christopher
3
Richardson seeking “[a]ll emails, texts, Teams, or Zoom messages and any and all
4
other written communications between [Mr. Richardson] and . . . (1) Nicolle
5
Fleury (2) Rayann Speakman, and (3) Jack Gilbert,” from January 2022 until
6
present. ECF No. 1 at 8. On September 6, 2023, Plaintiff requested from FHWA
7
employee Rayann Speakman all the emails, Microsoft Teams messages, cellphone
8
text messages, and audio or video recordings she had created from January 2022
9
until present. Id. On September 7, 2023, the FHWA FOIA office informed
10
Plaintiff that the emails he sent to Mr. Richardson and Ms. Speakman did not
11
constitute proper requests. Id. at 9. After several additional exchanges, Plaintiff’s
12
final clarification, sent on October 23, 2023, was for “all emails and Microsoft
13
Teams messages between Christoper Richardson and Nicolle Fleury from January
14
1, 2022, until present.” Id. at 6. On December 6, 2023, Defendant responded to
15
Plaintiff’s request to appeal the decision that the email exchanges did not constitute
16
proper FOIA requests. Id. at 8. Defendant explained that the request was still
17
impermissibly untenable for FHWA to process, and Plaintiff’s keywords including
18
“dot.gov” did not provide any clarification given that the agency is made up of
19
20
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DIMISS ~ 2
1
55,000 employees who all carry the same domain.1 Id. at 9. Therefore, Plaintiff
2
was unable to appeal the decision because Defendant had not yet accepted his
3
emails as a valid FOIA request. Id.
4
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, requesting the Court decide his October 23,
5
2023, email constitutes a valid FOIA request. Id. at 4. Defendant filed a motion to
6
dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief because he has yet to send a
7
proper FOIA request. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff responded, stating he has a valid FOIA
8
request because his emails reasonably described the records sought. ECF No. 7.
DISCUSSION
9
10
Defendant filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to
11
dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A Rule
12
12(b)(6) motion will be denied if the plaintiff alleges “sufficient factual matter,
13
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.
14
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
15
570 (2007)). While the plaintiff’s “allegations of material fact are taken as true
16
and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff” the plaintiff cannot rely
17
on “conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences … to defeat a
18
19
20
1
Defendant also including another keyword, either “a” or “@,” but the Court is
unable to discern which given the grainy nature of the document.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DIMISS ~ 3
1
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” In re Stac Elecs. Sec. Litig., 89 F.3d
2
1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation and brackets omitted). That is, the plaintiff
3
must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
4
elements.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Instead, a plaintiff must show “factual
5
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
6
liable for the alleged misconduct.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662. A district court is
7
permitted to consider materials attached to the complaint when deciding a motion
8
to dismiss without converting it into a motion for summary judgment. United
9
States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted).
10
Congress enacted FOIA “to pierce the veil of administrative scrutiny and to
11
open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.” Dep't of Air Force v. Rose, 425
12
U.S. 352, 361 (1976). When an agency receives a request for records eligible for
13
disclosure that “reasonably describes” what is sought, the agency is required to
14
provide the records. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). A request is sufficient in reasonably
15
describing the records sought when it “enable[s] a professional employee of the
16
agency who was familiar with the subject area of the request to locate the record
17
with a reasonable amount of effort.” Marks v. U.S. (Dep't of Just.), 578 F.2d 261,
18
263 (9th Cir. 1978) (internal citations omitted). Further, an agency need only
19
make “reasonable efforts” to search for electronic records. 5 U.S.C. §
20
552(a)(3)(C). While FOIA favors disclosure, broad sweeping requests lacking
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DIMISS ~ 4
1
specificity are not permitted. Yagman v. Pompeo, 868 F.3d 1075, 1081 (9th Cir.
2
2017); Dale v. IRS, 238 F. Supp. 2d 99, 104 (D.D.C. 2002); see also Inst. for Just.
3
v. Internal Revenue Serv., 941 F.3d 567, 570 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“FOIA requires
4
agencies to disclose all non-exempt data points . . . subject, as always, to limits
5
aimed at protecting agencies from undue burdens.”). Included in this calculus of
6
reasonableness is the post-search burden placed upon the agency to sift through
7
materials, and courts have held that overbroad or vague requests that bury agencies
8
are not reasonable.2 Ctr. for Immigr. Stud. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs.,
9
628 F. Supp. 3d 266, 272 (D.D.C. 2022); Yagman, 868 F.3d at 1081 (“Here,
10
Defendants would need to engage in quite a bit of guesswork to execute Yagman's
11
request. His request does not identify specific persons, much less specific
12
documents, types of documents, or types of information.”); cf. Shapiro v. Cent.
13
Intel. Agency, 170 F. Supp. 3d 147, 154 (D.D.C. 2016) (holding that a search for
14
all documents mentioning Nelson Mandela, involved virtually no guesswork, and
15
16
2
However, just because a request would produce a great deal of documents does
17
not make it per se unreasonable. See Yagman, 868 F.3d 1075, 1081 n. 6 (9th Cir.
18
2017) (quoting Yeager v. DEA, 678 F.2d 315, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (“[T]he number
19
of records requested appears to be irrelevant to the determination whether they
20
have been ‘reasonably described.’”).
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DIMISS ~ 5
1
therefore the subject matter of the search was reasonably described).
2
Plaintiff asserts that he is not seeking all documents concerning a particular
3
subject, but therein lies the problem. ECF No. 7 at 4. His FOIA request is flawed
4
because it lacks any limiting subject matter and cannot be said to “reasonably
5
describe” the information sought. Plaintiff insists that his request is focused in
6
nature, because he narrowed the scope of the search to emails and Microsoft
7
Teams messages exchanged between two employees within nearly two-year
8
period. Id. However, it still unclear what general subject matter Plaintiff hopes to
9
uncover from this request, and Defendant informed him that as stated, his request
10
does not particularize the search as 55,000 employees utilize the “dot.gov” domain.
11
ECF No. 1 at 9. Plaintiff could have solved this problem by providing FHWA with
12
a general idea of what he was searching for and was invited to do so. Yeager v.
13
Drug Enf't Admin., 678 F.2d 315, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (“It is clear in this case that
14
the DEA knew ‘precisely’ which of its records had been requested and the nature
15
of the information sought from those records.”); ECF No. 1 at 9. He declined to do
16
so, and instead chose to litigate. Id. at 6.
17
To place a finer point, the request is not unduly burdensome because it will
18
require a detailed search of the records, but because it creates a burden on
19
Defendant to comb through documents that may not ultimately be responsive to
20
whatever Plaintiff’s desired research point may be. Ctr. for Immigr. Stud., 628 F.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DIMISS ~ 6
1
Supp. at 273 (“Workplace emails include conversations between coworkers about
2
miscellaneous topics and missives from the employer about topics unrelated to
3
official business, like canned food drives and health care plans. The Center's
4
requests sweep in all those communications, despite their irrelevance to
5
immigration, forcing the agency into years of work.”). FOIA was not designed to
6
provide the requester with an “all-encompassing fishing expedition of files in every
7
office within an agency.” Cause of Action Inst. v. IRS, 253 F. Supp. 3d 149, 160
8
(D.D.C. 2017). While Plaintiff’s request cannot be characterized as searching for
9
“every file within an agency” as he has limited the individuals and timeframe
10
regarding the records he is seeking, his request is still incredibly broad, and he
11
provides no narrowing agent with which Defendant can use to conduct a search.
12
This is not to suggest that Plaintiff must express exactly what he is looking for, but
13
providing the agency with the ability to focus the scope in order to produce a more
14
fruitful search would be a proper FOIA request. Ctr. for Immigr. Stud., 628 F.
15
Supp. 3d at 272 (“Agencies respond to FOIA requests at taxpayer expense, and
16
burdensome requests hinder an agency's ability to respond to other FOIA requests
17
and to conduct its other statutory responsibilities.”). The Court finds that
18
Plaintiff’s email is impermissibly vague, and therefore does not constitute a proper
19
FOIA request.
20
Plaintiff also faults Defendant for replying on December 6, 2023, to an
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DIMISS ~ 7
1
October 23, 2023, email sent at 7:02 p.m. and an October 25, 2023, request, sent at
2
an unknown time. ECF No. 1 at 3, 6. He contends that this response is outside of
3
the statutorily mandated thirty business day period. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i),
4
(a)(6)(B). By the Court’s calculation, including Veterans Day which was federally
5
recognized on Friday, November 10, 2023, and Thanksgiving Day on November
6
23, 2023, Defendant’s response was within the thirty business days period, and
7
therefore timely.
8
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
9
1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s
10
Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
11
2. Any pending motions are DENIED as moot.
12
The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, furnish copies to
13
14
counsel, and CLOSE the file.
DATED May 8, 2024.
15
16
17
THOMAS O. RICE
United States District Judge
18
19
20
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DIMISS ~ 8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?