155 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2016Background
- Sai, proceeding pro se, sued TSA under FOIA and the Privacy Act seeking records relating to alleged discriminatory screening incidents at Boston Logan and San Francisco airports and related agency records.
- TSA withheld certain materials as Sensitive Security Information (SSI); the Court previously denied TSA’s motion to dismiss SSI-related allegations as premature because TSA had not yet submitted a Vaughn index or supporting declarations.
- Sai filed multiple post-complaint motions, including (a) to compel production/service of any 49 U.S.C. § 46105(b) orders and findings underlying SSI designations, (b) for attorney fees under FOIA, and (c) for leave to file a supplemental pleading adding 14 FOIA/PA requests.
- The Court granted Sai leave to file the SSI-related motion and an extension of time to reply, but denied the motion to compel SSI orders and findings, denied the fee motion as premature and for failure to follow filing restrictions, and denied leave to supplement with the additional 14 requests.
- The Court explained SSI issues are premature until TSA identifies specific withheld records and invokes particular exemptions; if an SSI ‘‘order’’ arises, exclusive jurisdiction to review it lies in the D.C. Circuit under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a).
- The Court also limited future filings by Sai without leave (except for extensions and summary-judgment filings under an upcoming schedule) and explained that the additional requests would unduly delay this case and could be pursued in separate suits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court should compel TSA to serve § 46105(b) orders and findings underlying SSI designations | Sai contends withholding under FOIA may be an ‘‘order’’ under § 46110(a); requests court order TSA to produce § 46105(b) orders/findings and delay issuance so he can timely appeal | TSA says SSI-order review (if any) is for the Court of Appeals; SSA will provide any appealable order with its Vaughn index | Denied as premature; Court will not order production of § 46105(b) orders here and lacks basis to alter § 46110(a) timing; factual predicate not developed |
| Whether Sai is entitled to attorney fees and costs under FOIA now | Sai claims he has substantially prevailed (TSA released >3,000 pages; court rejected dismissal of one request) and seeks fees (including $0 nominal fees) | TSA/Defendant argues relief is premature and procedural rules not followed | Denied: Sai not yet shown “substantially prevailed” or entitlement under FOIA’s two-step McKinley framework; motion also violated court filing restrictions |
| Whether Court should permit supplementation to add 14 additional FOIA/PA requests under Rule 15(d) | Sai seeks to add 14 post-complaint requests (some previously unexhausted now allegedly exhausted) to avoid separate suits | TSA argues adding many new requests would delay disposition and prejudice efficient resolution; earlier-unexhausted requests were previously rejected | Denied: adding the requests would cause undue delay, not promote efficiency; Sai may file separate suits |
| Whether to restrict further motion practice by Sai | Sai continues to file many motions and seeks various relief | Court had previously limited filings without leave to prevent abuse and delay | Court reiterates and enforces restriction: Sai must obtain leave before filing motions (except extensions and summary-judgment filings under upcoming schedule) |
Key Cases Cited
- Safe Extensions, Inc. v. FAA, 509 F.3d 593 (D.C. Cir.) (broad construction of "order" under § 46110)
- Avia Dynamics, Inc. v. FAA, 641 F.3d 515 (D.C. Cir.) (60-day appeal period begins when order is officially made public)
- McKinley v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, 739 F.3d 707 (D.C. Cir.) (two-step FOIA fee analysis: eligibility and entitlement factors)
- Brayton v. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 641 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir.) (discussing pre- and post-amendment FOIA fee eligibility standards)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (Sup. Ct.) (court-ordered relief requirement affected fee recovery doctrine)
- Morley v. CIA, 719 F.3d 689 (D.C. Cir.) (discussion of fee-award standards and related concurrences)
- Hall v. CIA, 437 F.3d 94 (D.C. Cir.) (denial of leave to supplement FOIA requests when it would delay resolution)
- Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir.) (commentary on substantial prevailing standard)
- Burka v. HHS, 142 F.3d 1286 (D.C. Cir.) (pro se litigants cannot recover fees for their own time spent litigating)
- Weisberg v. Department of Justice, 745 F.3d 1476 (D.C. Cir.) (discussed in connection with catalyst theory and fee nexus)