American Property Locators, Inc. v. United States Customs and Border Protection
Civil Action No. 2024-0379
D.D.C.Mar 21, 2025Background
- American Property Locators, Inc. (APL), an asset recovery company, submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for financial records related to 108 stale checks issued to third-party payees.
- CBP classified APL as a commercial requester, assessed a $738 fee estimate, and applied its "business submitter process," involving notification and review time for third parties whose commercial information might be disclosed.
- APL administratively appealed, arguing against the inclusion of business submitter process time in the fee, but CBP affirmed its approach and subsequently closed the request when APL did not pay the fee.
- APL then filed this action in federal court, challenging the fee estimate and CBP's application of the business submitter process, and alleging failure to conduct an adequate search or produce records.
- The court treated CBP's motion as one for summary judgment because both parties submitted evidence beyond the pleadings.
- The dispute centers on whether the business submitter process and associated fees are a reasonable and legally permissible part of FOIA processing in this context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of the business submitter process | Business submitter process should not apply to request for stale check information; records are not confidential commercial info | CBP's regulations require process for requests potentially including commercial/financial info from third parties | CBP reasonably applied the process; request seeks commercial info subject to process |
| Reasonableness of fee estimate | Fee is improperly inflated by inclusion of business submitter review; should be reassessed | Fee properly reflects direct costs per FOIA, including business submitter process time | Fee reasonable and limited to direct costs; estimate complied with FOIA |
| Waiver or reduction of fees | Did not seek waiver but contended fee is excessive by improper process inclusion | Fee waiver not warranted; commercial requester not entitled to waiver per agency rules | Plaintiff not entitled to waiver/reduction beyond what agency provided |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | CBP did not timely complete search or issue determination, so exhaustion occurred | APL failed to exhaust because required fee was not paid after appeal remand | No exhaustion as fee left unpaid; CBP properly closed request |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (outlines summary judgment standard: genuine dispute over material fact required)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment proper where party fails to establish element essential to case)
- Dep’t of Just. v. Reps. Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (FOIA review by district courts is de novo and burden is on agency)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (exhaustion of remedies required to sue: must pay required fees or appeal refusal to waive)
- Clemente v. FBI, 867 F.3d 111 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (agencies cannot impose arbitrary obstacles to FOIA access; procedures must be reasonable)
- Food Mktg. Inst. v. Argus Leader Media, 588 U.S. 427 (2019) (defining "confidential" for FOIA Exemption 4 as information actually and customarily kept private by the submitter)