EDDINGTON v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 1:19-cv-02984

Patrick Eddington, a Cato Institute analyst, submitted a FOIA request to the U.S. Postal Service on May 12, 2019 seeking USPS correspondence about plans to detain or register (1) persons of the Muslim faith and (2) persons of Arab or Persian/Iranian heritage in the event of a national emergency, AUMF, or Declaration of War.
USPS replied that the request was not sufficiently specific given its decentralized records (30,000+ facilities) and invited clarification; it would not proceed absent further input.
Rather than narrow the request with USPS, Eddington appealed and stated in the appeal he would limit the search to five specific USPS offices; USPS denied the appeal.
Eddington then sued under FOIA; USPS moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, arguing the request did not reasonably describe the records sought and narrowing on appeal was improper.
The Court analyzed exhaustion under Rule 12(b)(6) and concluded the FOIA request was facially deficient—ambiguous country/group definitions—and that USPS never had a fair opportunity to exercise its discretion; the Court granted USPS’s motion and dismissed the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to exhaust because request not reasonably descriptive	Eddington had filed a FOIA request and appealed; he later narrowed to five offices on appeal	Request language was vague (e.g., undefined "nation(s)", unclear group definitions); USPS lacked a reasonably described target to search	Court held request facially deficient and dismissal for failure to exhaust was warranted
Permissibility of narrowing request on appeal	Eddington narrowed his request in the administrative appeal	USPS argued narrowing on appeal undermines orderly admin process and agency's first opportunity to rule	Court said plaintiff should have worked with USPS pre-appeal; although it disposed of the case on clarity grounds, it treated narrowing on appeal as improper
Whether exhaustion should be excused in this case	(Implicit) Eddington sought to proceed after appealing	USPS urged no exception; agency never had chance to search or exercise discretion	Court refused to excuse exhaustion and required a perfected, comprehensible request before suit

Hidalgo v. FBI, 344 F.3d 1256 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (FOIA exhaustion is a jurisprudential doctrine and failure to exhaust generally bars review)
Wilbur v. CIA, 355 F.3d 675 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (exhaustion may be excused only when doing so would serve FOIA’s purposes and administrative scheme)
Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (claimants must file a FOIA request and administratively appeal before suing)
Middle East Forum v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 317 F. Supp. 3d 257 (D.D.C. 2018) (without a perfected request, an agency has no duty to respond)
Cable News Network, Inc. v. FBI, 271 F. Supp. 3d 108 (D.D.C. 2017) (FOIA exhaustion is a core component of orderly procedure and good administration)
Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Rule 12(b)(6) requires courts to accept factual allegations as true)
Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (courts need not accept legal conclusions as true on a motion to dismiss)
Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (U.S. 1986) (legal conclusions disguised as factual allegations need not be accepted on a motion to dismiss)