Yunes v. United States Department of Justice
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166
| D.D.C. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Edmon Felipe Elias Yunes (Dominican Republic citizen) submitted a FOIA request to the FBI on June 13 seeking records linking him to criminal/terrorist activity after his visa was revoked.
- FBI acknowledged the request in July and began searching; parties dispute when the acknowledgment and denial letters were received by plaintiff’s counsel.
- FBI mailed a determination letter (stating no records found and advising right to appeal) dated August 8; counsel received a letter dated August 6 only on September 19.
- Elias Yunes filed this suit on August 15 requesting the court to compel an adequate FBI search — after the FBI had mailed its determination but before counsel received it.
- DOJ moved to dismiss or for summary judgment on the ground that Elias Yunes failed to exhaust administrative remedies (i.e., appeal to the Office of Information Policy) before suing; the court converted the motion to summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff was excused from administrative exhaustion because the FBI failed to respond within the statutory period | Elias Yunes argued suit was timely because he filed before receiving a substantive determination and thus was constructively exhausted | DOJ argued the FBI mailed a determination before plaintiff filed suit, so exhaustion (appeal to OIP) was required | Court held exhaustion required because the agency responded (mailed determination) before suit was filed, so plaintiff’s suit was premature |
| Whether the mailing date or the receipt date controls for triggering exhaustion | Elias Yunes argued receipt date controls; he filed before receiving the determination so exhaustion not required | DOJ relied on case law treating agency’s response (i.e., mailing/decision) as the relevant event, not the requester’s receipt | Court held the agency’s response date controls (mailing/decision); receipt by requester is not controlling for exhaustion purposes |
| Whether there is a genuine dispute about the authenticity/timing of the FBI letter (backdating) | Elias Yunes suggested discrepancies in letter dates indicate potential backdating or bad faith | DOJ explained the date discrepancy as an administrative error and relied on declarations; agency affidavits get a presumption of good faith | Court found no genuine issue of material fact undermining the FBI’s account and accepted the agency’s explanation |
Key Cases Cited
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (1990) (administrative appeal is normally required in FOIA and constructive exhaustion applies only when agency fails to respond in statutory time)
- Hidalgo v. F.B.I., 344 F.3d 1256 (2003) (exhaustion is a jurisprudential requirement in FOIA to allow agency expertise and record-building)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rossotti, 326 F.3d 1309 (2003) (if agency responds after statutory window but before suit, exhaustion requirement still applies)
- Walsh v. FBI, 905 F. Supp. 2d 80 (2012) (agency affidavits receive a presumption of good faith that can be rebutted only with contrary evidence)
- Calhoun v. Dep’t of Justice, 693 F. Supp. 2d 89 (2010) (when parties submit extrinsic evidence the court should treat a dismissal motion as one for summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard requires no genuine dispute of material fact)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmoving party must show more than metaphysical doubt to defeat summary judgment)