Jump to content
foolish

Filing Motion

Recommended Posts

Is there a special motion, by name that can be filed requesting a Court to brief a narrrow issue? 

The reason why I ask is because the issues I am faced with actually effects alot of FOIA cases, since it hasn't been directly resolved, the federal agency exploited this loophole without benefit of ever arguing under the proper legal grounds, their different reasons to deny access to responsive records.  I want to close this loophole by having the court directly addressing this issue.  The facts, agency regulations and precedent case laws, analogous to my case supports my position. What should have taken a reasonable amount of time to resolve my issue has taken close to decades to get where I am at.  This issue has to be fully briefed, aired out and litigated.  

Thanks a head of time for any positive input. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, foolish said:

Is there a special motion, by name that can be filed requesting a Court to brief a narrrow issue?

 

No. Courts don't brief issues just for the sake of briefing them. The mere fact that you are unhappy that the agency used this “loophole” is not sufficient to put the matter before the court. Unless it is something that makes a difference in the outcome of your present FOIA litigation there won’t be a forum here for you to “air out” this issue. The word “loophole” suggests that what the agency did was within the rules but the result is one you think the rules were not meant to allow. If that's the case that can be very hard to battle. Without knowing what it is that the agency did — what loophole you want to close — and the current state of your FOIA case I cannot suggest any way to get the matter reviewed. All I can tell you is that you have to make a motion to ask the court to do something in your case that would involve this issue. That means asking the court to do something substantive in your case, like dismissing a claim, enjoining the agency from introducing certain evidence, or whatever. You can’t just go to the court and say “I don’t think the agency use of this loophole was proper and I want to shut it down.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tax_Counsel said:

 

No. Courts don't brief issues just for the sake of briefing them. The mere fact that you are unhappy that the agency used this “loophole” is not sufficient to put the matter before the court. Unless it is something that makes a difference in the outcome of your present FOIA litigation there won’t be a forum here for you to “air out” this issue. The word “loophole” suggests that what the agency did was within the rules but the result is one you think the rules were not meant to allow. If that's the case that can be very hard to battle. Without knowing what it is that the agency did — what loophole you want to close — and the current state of your FOIA case I cannot suggest any way to get the matter reviewed. All I can tell you is that you have to make a motion to ask the court to do something in your case that would involve this issue. That means asking the court to do something substantive in your case, like dismissing a claim, enjoining the agency from introducing certain evidence, or whatever. You can’t just go to the court and say “I don’t think the agency use of this loophole was proper and I want to shut it down.”

 

Okay, first let me explain the current posture of FOIA case is the most positive than last year, the court basically said that the other courts never ruled on the merits of agencies responses because the main case was dismissed sua sponte at the pleading stage, it had no bearing the current response. 

 

In summary background  in 2003 I originally filed my first request with the agency 'for records in its possession', it processed the request, and withheld a certain amount of documents responsive to my specific request, that withholding was never appealed to the agency appellate body.   In 2008 I filed a second request requesting the documents the agency withheld from previously, within days it assigned a reference number to request and referred it a secondary agency for processing and direct response to me.  That agency responded adversely, by stating that the responsive could not be located and was known to be destroyed by a different state agency.  However, it located  a certain amount documents and gave everything to me. 

 

That is the one the court dismissed sua sponte at the pleading stage, I filed a third FOIA/PA request for the same records, this time with the secondary agency since the primary agency would just as a matter policy automatically refer it to that anyways. The third response was an entirely different reason the third response was that the court was not under FOIA's domain.    Just like this one, not a FOIA record.  

 

First I filed my second request well within the six year statue of limitation of  Spannaus v. Dep't of Justice, 824 F.2d 52, 61 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)(1982)), in fact according to the General Record Schedule of 14, Rule 11(3)(a) (1995) which agencies own regulations adopted 6 C.F.R.§ 5.10 FOIA and Rule 5.28 prohibits the destruction of the withheld records that was not appeals for six years from the withholding date.   My second request fell well within the retention and prohibition period.  Next is the agencies constant change of position which regarding that withholding subsequent agencies must stand on that withholding as a matter of its own regulations  https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2003-title8-vol1/xml/CFR-2003-title8-vol1-sec103-10.xml if they didn't stated the issues they faced when the facts where before them they simply cannot conjure them up in a future date. That\s pretty much what they have been doing just pulling excuses out of their hat.   This effects a lot of FOIA cases, its substantive. So am I correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...