Perkins v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs
754 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2010Background
- Perkins requested FOIA information from VA ITC about employee training for FY 1999-2006 and asked for a fee waiver under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii).
- VA ITC denied the fee waiver, charging $1,033.90, and stated the waiver did not meet public-interest criteria under 38 C.F.R. § 1.555(f).
- Plaintiff offered to pay one-third of the fee and proposed partial disclosure in exchange, which was rejected.
- Plaintiff submitted additional information supporting the waiver, including his claimed ability to analyze and disseminate results to public audiences.
- VA General Counsel issued a final decision denying the waiver in March 2008, finding insufficient public-interest value and capacity to process/disseminate the data.
- This suit followed cross-motions for summary judgment; the court grants defendant’s motion and denies the waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner satisfies the public-interest waiver factors | Perkins asserts the records will enhance public understanding of government operations. | VA found insufficient informative value and dissemination ability, failing factors (ii)-(iv). | Waiver denied; factors (ii)-(iv) not satisfied. |
| Whether the administrative record properly includes Perkins's June 23, 2008 letter | Letter constitutes part of the administrative record and informs the waiver decision. | Post-decision communications are outside the administrative record. | Not necessary to resolve; even if included, outcome unchanged. |
| Whether the requested records realistically contribute to public understanding given their content | Records will illuminate racial training/travel disparities and are broadly relevant. | Records do not reveal race/ethnicity; thus limited public understanding potential. | Factor (ii) not satisfied; records do not meaningfully inform on government operations. |
| Whether Perkins can demonstrate the ability to process and disseminate the data to a general audience | IT background and prior experience show capability to analyze and share results. | No credible demonstration of statistical expertise or dissemination means; evidence is lacking. | Factor (iii) not satisfied; dissemination ability not adequately shown. |
| Whether Perkins has shown the ability to disseminate information through credible channels | Intends to share with news, labor, civil rights groups, Congress. | Lacks credible contacts or track record with major outlets; assertions are conclusory. | Factor (iv) not satisfied; dissemination plan not credible enough. |
Key Cases Cited
- In Defense of Animals v. Nat'l Inst. of Health, 543 F.Supp.2d 83 (D.D.C. 2008) (FOIA fee waiver de novo with record-based review)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rossotti, 326 F.3d 1309 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (plain-language requirements for waiver standards)
- McClellan Ecological Seepage Situation v. Carlucci, 835 F.2d 1282 (9th Cir. 1987) (liberal construction for noncommercial requesters; burden on requester)
- Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 402 F.Supp.2d 82 (D.D.C. 2005) (evidence of expertise and dissemination supports waiver)
- In Defense of Animals, 543 F.Supp.2d 83 (D.D.C. 2008) (dissemination and regulatory impact considerations in analysis)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (issues of dissemination evidence in fee waivers)
- Larson v. C.I.A., 843 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (need for concrete plans to disseminate information; not just intent)
- Jarvik v. C.I.A., 495 F.Supp.2d 67 (D.D.C. 2007) (administrative-record scope and post-decision submissions)