4 ms·

> The lawsuits generally ask judges to rule that the records being sought do not have to be divulged. They name the requesters as defendants but do not seek dam

by twiss 9y ago

> The lawsuits generally ask judges to rule that the records being sought do not have to be divulged. They name the requesters as defendants but do not seek damage awards. Weird. Don't you at least have to allege that the defendants did something wrong to start a lawsuit? Even if the requested documents don't have to be released, the requesters didn't do anything wrong. I feel like these lawsuits should be dismissed.

tryingagainbro 9y ago
Probably using the same law to weed out "troublemakers" that ask for a bazillion records simply because they can. A nation of laws and all :) The judges will sort it out and no one can (really) complain.
- evilduck 9y ago
  Yeah I’ve seen this first hand when I was a government contractor. A guy would come into the public information office once a week and request all the data for a thing be printed for him. From 1973-present, every week. It was reams and reams of paper and he could have just asked for the historical data once and the previous week’s data each week if he was really interested in anything besides being wasteful. Afaik it was within his right to ask for it and the office had to comply.
  - colejohnson66 9y ago
    Doesn’t the FOIA allow the government to charge a “reasonable” amount for labor?
    - pc86 9y ago
      Yes, which at the very least could be the actual cost of the paper and the cost of the person's time fulfilling the request.
    - evilduck 9y ago
      I’m not really well versed in the legal side. This also was a regular, well used public info resource, not a singular FOIA request. It just happened to be abused by an individual.
  - specialist 9y ago
    I've always been charged for material expenses. YMMV.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  The laws that permit these records requests also permit reasonable fees for fulfilling the requests, which pretty easily sorts that issue out.
pera 9y ago
It is weird. Here is a very relevant case that happened back in 2015 in NJ with a different conclusion: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150630/16393431506/court-tells-city-no-you-cannot-sue-someone-making-foia-request.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150630/16393431506/court... > The court concludes that the right to bring the issue to court belongs exclusively to the requestor, not the government agency.
- pc86 9y ago
  It is not weird. As other comments here point out, it's a pretty normal thing called a declaratory judgment.
cat199 9y ago
No lawyer hear by a long shot, and couldn't actually find the real court records casually but I think the idea is that the suit is likely some sort of 'cease the initial request' on grounds that the initial request was invalid/conflicts with something else, which then forces the judge to decide the validity of the request under whatever public records law or not.. Still screwy, IMHO, since as I understand it there is a means for the gov't to deny the request, there is usually some appeals process, whatever.. as article states this seems like a way to buck that process and shunt it to another process which has negative consequences for the requestor in the form of legal fees..
- zebrafish 9y ago
  I think as the defendant you're entitled to a public defender, are you not? If all FOIA requestors simply used the public defender available to them it might cost the government enough money to cause them to either ax the FOIA program (political implications) or simply comply with requests.
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    You are entitled to a lawyer in a criminal case not a civil case, I think. This is not a criminal case. So you can't afford a lawyer you have to represent yourself. And surprisingly unless it is the exact same branch and department of government forcing it to spend money doesn't teach it a lesson, it just cuts education or start asking for more taxes.
  - rbritton 9y ago
    In principal the idea would be nice, but all government expenditures are ultimately funded by taxpayers, so there's little reason for them to care how much it costs.
dsp1234 9y ago
IANAL. The legal term for that the government is seeking is "declaratory judgement"[0]. "A declaratory judgment, also called a declaration, is the legal determination of a court that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants. It is a form of legally binding preventive adjudication by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a civil dispute (subject to any appeal)." Here the government is asking the court to declare that the subject matter is off limits, and not available to be released, as a matter of law. Declaratory judgments are probably best known here on HN with regards to patent litigation. If a company receives a 'cease and desist', alleging the non-licensed use of a patent, that company might file for a declaratory judgement that their product does not actual infringe on the patent. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment

by twiss 9y ago

tryingagainbro 9y ago

Probably using the same law to weed out "troublemakers" that ask for a bazillion records simply because they can. A nation of laws and all :) The judges will sort it out and no one can (really) complain.

evilduck 9y ago
Yeah I’ve seen this first hand when I was a government contractor. A guy would come into the public information office once a week and request all the data for a thing be printed for him. From 1973-present, every week. It was reams and reams of paper and he could have just asked for the historical data once and the previous week’s data each week if he was really interested in anything besides being wasteful. Afaik it was within his right to ask for it and the office had to comply.
- colejohnson66 9y ago
  Doesn’t the FOIA allow the government to charge a “reasonable” amount for labor?
  - pc86 9y ago
    Yes, which at the very least could be the actual cost of the paper and the cost of the person's time fulfilling the request.
  - evilduck 9y ago
    I’m not really well versed in the legal side. This also was a regular, well used public info resource, not a singular FOIA request. It just happened to be abused by an individual.
- specialist 9y ago
  I've always been charged for material expenses. YMMV.
ceejayoz 9y ago
The laws that permit these records requests also permit reasonable fees for fulfilling the requests, which pretty easily sorts that issue out.

pera 9y ago

It is weird. Here is a very relevant case that happened back in 2015 in NJ with a different conclusion: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150630/16393431506/court-tells-city-no-you-cannot-sue-someone-making-foia-request.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150630/16393431506/court... > The court concludes that the right to bring the issue to court belongs exclusively to the requestor, not the government agency.

pc86 9y ago
It is not weird. As other comments here point out, it's a pretty normal thing called a declaratory judgment.

cat199 9y ago

No lawyer hear by a long shot, and couldn't actually find the real court records casually but I think the idea is that the suit is likely some sort of 'cease the initial request' on grounds that the initial request was invalid/conflicts with something else, which then forces the judge to decide the validity of the request under whatever public records law or not.. Still screwy, IMHO, since as I understand it there is a means for the gov't to deny the request, there is usually some appeals process, whatever.. as article states this seems like a way to buck that process and shunt it to another process which has negative consequences for the requestor in the form of legal fees..

zebrafish 9y ago
I think as the defendant you're entitled to a public defender, are you not? If all FOIA requestors simply used the public defender available to them it might cost the government enough money to cause them to either ax the FOIA program (political implications) or simply comply with requests.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  You are entitled to a lawyer in a criminal case not a civil case, I think. This is not a criminal case. So you can't afford a lawyer you have to represent yourself. And surprisingly unless it is the exact same branch and department of government forcing it to spend money doesn't teach it a lesson, it just cuts education or start asking for more taxes.
- rbritton 9y ago
  In principal the idea would be nice, but all government expenditures are ultimately funded by taxpayers, so there's little reason for them to care how much it costs.

dsp1234 9y ago

IANAL. The legal term for that the government is seeking is "declaratory judgement"[0]. "A declaratory judgment, also called a declaration, is the legal determination of a court that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants. It is a form of legally binding preventive adjudication by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a civil dispute (subject to any appeal)." Here the government is asking the court to declare that the subject matter is off limits, and not available to be released, as a matter of law. Declaratory judgments are probably best known here on HN with regards to patent litigation. If a company receives a 'cease and desist', alleging the non-licensed use of a patent, that company might file for a declaratory judgement that their product does not actual infringe on the patent. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment