Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Federal Election Commission
839 F. Supp. 2d 17
D.D.C.2011Background
- CREW filed FOIA request to the FEC on March 7, 2011 seeking multiple categories of records related to three FEC commissioners and their communications and schedules.
- FEC acknowledged the request, granted a fee waiver, and agreed to a rolling production after narrowing scope.
- First set of potentially responsive documents was received and produced on June 15, 2011; total production concluded by June 23, 2011 with redactions and exemptions noted.
- CREW filed suit on May 23, 2011 challenging the FEC’s response and seeking enforcement under FOIA.
- FEC moved to dismiss for mootness and failure to exhaust administrative remedies, or alternatively for summary judgment.
- Court held that mootness did not defeat the challenge to the adequacy of the response and granted summary judgment on the exhaustion issue, dismissing CREW’s case for lack of exhaustion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FOIA action is moot due to production of documents. | CREW argues production moots the case. | FEC contends mootness only as to timeliness, not the entire challenge. | Mootness as to timeliness; case survives to address adequacy of response. |
| Whether CREW properly exhausted administrative remedies before filing suit. | CREW argues it constructively exhausted due to delayed response. | FEC argues CREW should have exhausted administratively after a determination. | CREW failed to show constructive exhaustion; exhaustion required and pre-suit determination adequate, leading to dismissal for lack of exhaustion. |
| Whether the FEC provided a proper determination triggering exhaustion under FOIA. | ARGues the response was not a proper determination. | FEC’s response satisfied FOIA's requirements. | FEC provided an adequate determination prior to suit. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Black Police Ass'n v. District of Columbia, 108 F.3d 346 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (forecloses advisory opinions; requires ongoing controversy for Article III.)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (administrative exhaustion triggered by agency determination and right to appeal.)
- Petit-Frere v. U.S. Atty’s Office for the S. Dist. of Florida, 664 F. Supp. 2d 69 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (processing notice alone may not be a final determination; exhaustion context.)
- Open America v. Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 547 F.2d 605 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (backlog with due diligence can justify a stay under Open America.)
- Spannaus v. U.S. Department of Justice, 824 F.2d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (acknowledgment of receipt not a final FOIA determination.)
- Love v. FBI, 660 F. Supp. 2d 56 (D.D.C. 2009) (premature exhaustion where processing with delay indicated.)
- In Defense of Animals v. NIH, 543 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D.D.C. 2008) (constructive exhaustion considerations in agency processing.)
- Edmonds v. FBI, 417 F.3d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (FOIA fee shifting and related issues; used for context on exhaustion/production timelines.)