It is now clear that you have not done any research about what constitutes a valid FOIA request. If you would like to do some research the DOJ Procedures guide

It is now clear that you have not done any research about what constitutes a valid FOIA request. If you would like to do some research the DOJ Procedures guide that I have previously recommended is extremely detailed and thorough. I was serious when I said you might enjoy reading it if you are interested in FOIA. Please note, I have only included footnotes 107 and 108 because they seem to be the most relevant to this comment. Courts have recognized that the legislative history of the 1974 FOIA amendments indicates that a description of a requested record is sufficient if it enables a professional agency employee familiar with the subject area to locate the record with a "reasonable amount of effort."[105] Courts have also found that requests that are so broad and sweeping that they lack specificity are not reasonably described.[106] Courts have explained that "[t]he rationale for this rule is that FOIA was not intended to reduce government agencies to full-time investigators on behalf of requesters,"[107] or to allow requesters to conduct "fishing expeditions" through agencyfiles.108 Courts have recognized that an agency's FOIA staff is neither required to have "clairvoyant capabilities" to discern the requester's needs,[109] nor must they spend "countless numbers of personnel hours seeking needles in bureaucratic haystacks."[110] [107] Assassination Archives & Research Ctr. v. CIA, 720 F. Supp. 217, 219 (D.D.C. 1989), aff'd in pertinent part, No. 89-5414, 1990 WL 123924 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 1990) (per curiam); accord Nurse v. Sec'y of the Air Force, 231 F. Supp. 2d 323, 329 (D.D.C. 2002) (quoting Assassination Archives & Research Ctr., 720 F. Supp. at 219); see, e.g., Bloeser v. DOJ, 811 F. Supp. 2d 316, 321 (D.D.C. 2011) (reasoning that "[b]ecause 'FOIA' was not intended to reduce government agencies to full-time investigators on behalf of requesters, . . . [t]o the extent that plaintiff can identify documents which he believes exist in a particular office within [DOJ], such identifying information should have been included as part of his original FOIA request"); Satterlee v. IRS, No. 05-3181, 2006 WL 3160963, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 30, 2006) (finding that request was improper where it would require agency to "conduct legal research" and answer questions "disguised as . . . FOIA request"); Frank v. DOJ, 941 F. Supp. 4, 5 (D.D.C. 1996) (stating that agency is not required to "dig out all the information that might exist, in whatever form or place it might be found, and to create a document that answers plaintiff's questions"); Lamb v. IRS, 871 F. Supp. 301, 304 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (finding requests outside scope of FOIA when they require legal research, are unspecific, or seek answers to interrogatories); Trenerry v. Dep't of the Treasury, No. 92-5053, 1993 WL 26813, at *3 (10th Cir. Feb. 5, 1993) (holding that agency not required to provide personal services such as legal research). [108] Immanuel v. Sec'y of the Treasury, No. 94-884, 1995 WL 464141, at *1 (D. Md. Apr. 4, 1995), aff'd, 81 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 1996) (unpublished table decision); see also Dale v. IRS, 238 F. Supp. 2d 99, 104-05 (D.D.C. 2002) (concluding that request seeking "'any and all documents . . . that refer or relate in any way'" to requester failed to reasonably describe records sought and "amounted to an all-encompassing fishing expedition of files at [agency's] offices across the country, at taxpayer expense").