910 F.Supp.2d 149
D.D.C.2012Background
- Sieverding sued the DOJ under the Privacy Act and FOIA; DOJ moved to dismiss or grant summary judgment on remaining FOIA claims; court had previously resolved most Privacy Act claims in Sieverding VI; this opinion addresses exhaustion, mootness, standing, and miscellaneous motions; the court treats the DOJ motion as summary judgment; several FOIA requests across USMS, EOUSA, and FBI are at issue; Sieverding’s filings include multiple amended complaints and motions to reconsider or for relief; the court ultimately grants the Department’s motion and dismisses the remaining FOIA claims for exhaustion and mootness, and denies the rest of Sieverding’s motions; Sieverding’s last remaining claims are dismissed, and the case is closed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sieverding exhausted FOIA claims against USMS. | Sieverding exhausted by appeals; DOJ failed to respond properly. | USMS records not exhausted due to no appeal of 2007 response. | Unexhausted; claims dismissed. |
| Whether Sieverding exhausted FOIA claims against EOUSA. | Appeal to OIP properly pursued; should proceed in court. | Appeal thwarted by litigation; exhaustion not complete. | Unexhausted; claims dismissed. |
| Whether Sieverding's FBI FOIA claim is moot. | FBI search was inadequate; ongoing relief sought. | FBI released 120 pages; no further action requested. | Moot; claim dismissed. |
| Standing to sue on behalf of Kay Sieverding. | David Sieverding acts for Kay; should proceed. | David lacks standing to sue for his wife. | Lacked standing; reference to Kay only; David not a proper plaintiff. |
| Whether amendment or relief from judgment should be granted. | Present new Privacy Act theories and challenge prior rulings. | Amendments and relief are futile or untimely. | Amendments denied; relief from judgments denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (exhaustion required before FOIA suit; agency opportunity to act)
- Hidalgo v. FBI, 344 F.3d 1256 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (exhaustion bar for FOIA claims in certain contexts)
- Antonelli v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 569 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D.D.C. 2008) (administrative exhaustion and DOJ processing of FOIA claims)
- Banks v. Dep't of Justice, 538 F. Supp. 2d 228 (D.D.C. 2008) (exhaustion and payment of FOIA fees; failure to pay fees defeats exhaustion)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; burden on moving party)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; mere colorable evidence insufficient)
- Hammond v. Kempthorne, 448 F. Supp. 2d 114 (D.D.C. 2006) (extraordinary circumstances standard for Rule 59(e) relief)