Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Administrative Law

FOIA Claim Moot Because Plaintiffs Had Already Obtained
the Requested Document

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Donham v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 07-CV-111-MJR, 2008 WL 5221102 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2008), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois held that the plaintiffs' claim against the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for wrongfully refusing to produce a document requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was moot because the plaintiffs had already obtained the document from its original owner.

Background

Plaintiffs brought an action against the USFS, claiming their request for production of certain documents pursuant to the FOIA was wrongfully denied. Id. at *1. The court granted summary judgment to the USFS regarding all but one of the documents, a copyrighted document to which the USFS obtained access pursuant to a licensing agreement with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) entitled ISO 14001. Id. Regarding this document, the court ordered the plaintiffs to join the ANSI to the action as a required party. Id. The ANSI appeared in the action and informed the court that it had voluntarily provided the plaintiffs with a copy of ISO 14001, and the parties moved for summary judgment. Id.

Arguments

The USFS argued that the plaintiffs' acquisition of the ISO 14001 from the ANSI made their claim moot, and alternatively argued that the document was not an agency record, and that even if it was an agency record, it was exempt from disclosure. Id.

Plaintiffs argued that their claim was not moot because the USFS denied their FOIA request and continued to claim that the document was exempt from disclosure. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs' claim presented an Article III "case or controversy," because the ANSI had already voluntarily provided the plaintiffs with a copy of the document they sought. Id. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' claim was moot because they already possessed the document they sought, so there was no further relief that could be granted. Id. at *3. The court also found that their injury could not reasonably be expected to recur because they had no need to make any future requests for the document, and thus the court dismissed the case. Id.

The case was decided on December 12, 2008.