United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
G.
MURRAY SNOW, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending
before the Court is Plaintiff Jorge Alejandro Rojas'
Motion Re Estimated Completion Dates (Doc. 81). For the
following reasons the motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
The
current motion continues a long-lived dispute between Rojas
and the FAA regarding the many requests Rojas has submitted
to the FAA under the Freedom of Information Act
(“FOIA”). Rojas' Complaint contained multiple
allegations regarding Rojas' FOIA requests, but his
allegations broadly fall within two groups. First, Rojas
listed six specific FOIA requests and generally alleged that
the FAA failed to timely provide estimated completion status
updates, that it failed to adequately respond, and that it
failed to respond to his appeals of its production decisions.
(See Doc. 1 at 3-11.) Next, Rojas alleged that the
FAA had established a pattern or practice of failing to
provide estimated completion dates (“ECDs”) for
his requests. He specifically alleged eight FOIA requests,
“among others, ” for which he had not received
estimated completion dates.
Rojas
brought three separate claims: (1) a FOIA violation through
failure to comply with statutory deadlines, (2) a FOIA
violation through withholding of agency records, and (3) a
FOIA and Administrative Procedure Act violation through
failure to provide ECDs and “complete administrative
action.” (See Id. at 12-13.) Rojas requested
seven forms of relief: orders requiring (1) reasonable
searches for responsive records, (2) provision of ECDs, (3)
disclosure of all responsive non-exempt records, (4)
production of a Vaughn Index, (5) production of records
without assessment of fees, (6) a special investigation under
5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(F), and (7) the payment of
attorneys' fees and costs. (Id. at 14.)
The FAA
moved for summary judgment on the first group of FOIA
requests-i.e., the six named requests in the first
group. The Court granted summary judgment for three requests
and denied for three requests. (Doc. 26.) A status conference
followed, at which the Court determined that the FAA had
waived its right to raise additional objections to Rojas'
FOIA requests by not raising them in its summary judgment
motion. (See Doc. 48 at 2.) The Court also ordered
the FAA to provide responsive documents for Requests 8952,
9570, and 4019, with redactions only if agreed to by Rojas.
(Id. at 3.)
The FAA
requested an extension of time to fully respond to Request
9570, which the Court granted. But rather than timely
providing documents for Requests 8952 and 4019, the FAA
provided responses to all three requests by the extended
deadline granted for Request 9570 only. (See id.)
When it provided the documents, the FAA had made redactions
to which Rojas had not agreed, in direct violation of the
Court's order. (Id.)
At the
next status conference, the Court denied the FAA's
request for a second round of summary judgment motions. The
Court also gave the FAA thirty more days to respond to
Rojas' document request. The FAA soon filed notice that
it had complied. But again, the documents had extensive
redactions to which Rojas had not agreed. So, the Court
ordered the FAA to show cause as to why it should not be held
in civil contempt for violating the Court's orders on
multiple occasions. (Id. at 6.) The Court also
directed the parties to meet and attempt good faith
resolution of the remaining issues without further court
intervention. (Id.) The show-cause hearing was
continued and eventually vacated when the parties indicated
that the FAA was finally in compliance with the Court's
orders. (See Doc. 56 at 1.) The parties' next
joint status report indicated that the FAA would be making
supplemental responses to some of Rojas' requests, and
that the parties were again disputing whether the FAA had
provided all responsive documents. (Doc. 58 at 2.) The Court
ordered the FAA to provide supplemental responses. (Doc. 59.)
In the
next round of joint status reports, the parties indicated
that the following issues remained outstanding in the case:
(1) whether the FAA had engaged in a pattern or practice of
failing to provide ECDs to Rojas' requests, (2) whether
the FAA should be sanctioned for its conduct, (3) whether
Rojas was entitled to attorneys' fees and costs, and (4)
whether a referral for investigation by the Office of Special
Counsel was warranted. (Doc. 68 at 2-3.)
At the
subsequent hearing, the Court ordered the FAA to provide ECDs
for all outstanding requests that had been submitted by Rojas
by the time he filed his Complaint. (Doc. 73 at 10.) The FAA
complied. (See Doc. 74.) The Court then directed
Rojas to file notice of his disagreement with the ECDs
provided, if any, and a motion regarding the ECDs, if needed.
(Doc. 80.) Rojas then filed this motion. (Doc. 81.) After
Rojas filed it, the parties filed a joint stipulation of
dismissal, in which they agreed to dismiss all issues in the
case except for those addressed by the current motion
regarding the ECDs.
DISCUSSION
I.
Modification of ECDs and Late Production
The
FOIA requires agencies to “establish a telephone line
or Internet service that provides information about the
status of a request to the person making the request using
the assigned tracking number, including . . . an estimated
date on which the agency will complete action on the
request.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(7)(B).
Rojas'
primary contention here is that in some instances, the FAA
has unreasonably revised its initial ECDs and that in other
instances the FAA has failed to meet the ECDs it gave. As
ordered by this Court, the FAA provided ECDs to Rojas. Many
of the ECDs have now passed and Rojas has received documents
responsive to his requests. As of the date of the FAA's
response to Rojas' motion, 71.15% of the 104 ECDs had
been completed, ...