Peralta v. U.S. Attorney's Office (1998)

Johnson Co. v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 890, 895 (D.C.Cir.1999) (citing Peralta v. U.S. Attorney’s Office, 136 F.3d 169, 173 (D.C.Cir.1998)), and, if so, the proper outcome on the merits, are matters we leave to the district court to decide in the first instance. 10 That disposes of Amax’s challenge to the regulation itself, but there is one last wrinkle concerning Amax’s challenge to the payment order.

See Peralta, 136 F.3d at 173 (“we have observed previously that FBI is ‘clearly ... covered’ by the FOIA”) (citing McGehee v. CIA, 697 F.2d 1095, 1108 (D.C.Cir.1983)).

Nor has the Commission been "added as a party through joinder or intervention." Peralta v. U.S. Attorney’s Office, Central District of California, 136 F.3d 169, 173 (D.C.Cir.1998).

Circuit has suggested that the FBI might be “subject to the FOIA in its own name.” Peralta v. U.S. Att’ys Off., 136 F.3d 169, 173 (D.C.

The EOUSA’s declarant has not addressed the outcome of the referral, and “a referral of records could constitute an improper withholding if the ‘net effect [of the referral procedure] is *89 significantly to impair the requester’s ability to obtain the records or significantly to increase the amount of time he must wait to obtain them.’” Plunkett v. Dep’t of Justice, 924 F.Supp.2d 289, 305 (D.D.C.2013) (quoting Peralta v. U.S. Attorney’s Office, 136 F.3d 169, 175 (D.C.Cir.19…

Hence, the Court finds that any purported claims arising from requests submitted to BOP and EOUSA, neither of which is identified in the complaint, are beyond the scope of this litigation. 4 See Peralta v. United States Attorney’s Office, 136 F.3d 169, 175 (D.C.Cir.1998) (instructing that “the district court’s first task [on remand] is to impose order on this chaotic record, and resolve who the defendant or defendants are in this case.”); Compl. at 1 (listing “Parties” as “D…

An improper withholding under the FOIA may result if the "net effect [of the referral procedure] is significantly to impair the requester's ability to obtain the records or significantly to increase the amount of time he must wait to obtain them.” Peralta v. U.S. Attorney’s Office, 136 F.3d 169, 175 (D.C.Cir.1998) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Because EOUSA is ultimately responsible for processing responsive records in its custody and control at the time of the FOIA request, a referral of records could constitute an improper withholding if the “net effect [of the referral procedure] is significantly to impair the requester’s ability to obtain the records or significantly to increase the amount of time he must wait to obtain them.” Peralta v. U.S. Attorney’s Office, 136 F.3d 169, 175 (D.C.Cir.1998) (quoting McGehee…

See, e.g., Prison Legal News, 436 F.Supp.2d at 22 ; Peralta v. U.S. Atb’y’s Office, 136 F.3d 169, 173-74 (D.C.Cir.1998) (“we suspect that the FBI is subject to the FOIA in its own name”); McGehee v. CIA 697 F.2d 1095, 1108 (D.C.Cir.1983) (“the organs of government that first compiled the records” are “clearly are covered by the Act”).

Moreover, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has suggested that the FBI is an agency susceptible to suit under the FOIA, Peralta v. U.S. Attorney’s Office, 136 F.3d 169, 173-74 (D.C.Cir.1998), which would make it equally susceptible to suit under the Privacy Act.

Peralta v. U.S. Attorney’s Office, 136 F.3d 169, 175 (D.C.Cir. 1998); Sussman, 494 F.3d at 1118 .

Peralta v. U.S. Att’y’s Office, 136 F.3d 169, 175 (D.C.Cir.1998).

(Def.’s Mot. at 1 fn. 1; Def.'s Reply at In. 1.) But see Peralta v. U.S. Atty.’s Office, 136 F.3d 169, 173-74 (D.C.Cir.1998) (citing numerous reasons for qualifying the FBI as an “agency” under 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 (1) and 552(f)).

Circuit’s suggestion that “components” such as the FBI and the Executive Office might be considered “agencies” under FOIA, Peralta v. U.S. Attorney’s Office, 136 F.3d 169, 173-74 (D.C.Cir.1998), the Court declines to dismiss the DEA and OIP from this action.

The issue raised by defendant’s referral is “whether the ‘referral procedure resulted] in the improper withholding ... of [d]ocuments[.]’ ” Maydak v. DOJ, 254 F.Supp.2d 23, 40 (D.D.C.2003) (Walton, J) (citing Peralta v. United States Attorney’s Office, 136 F.3d 169, 175 (D.C.Cir.1998) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(4)(B))).

See Peralta v. U.S. Attorney’s Office, 136 F.3d 169, 173 (D.C.Cir.1998) (on remand, party free to reassert argument raised for first time on appeal).

See, e.g., Peralta v. U.S. Attorney’s Ofice, 136 F.3d 169, 175-76 (D.C.Cir.1998) (applying McGehee where the EOUSA referred materials to the FBI for final disposition rather than releasing them or citing exemptions directly).

See Peralta, 136 F.3d at 174 .

See Peralta, 136 F.3d at 174 .

Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106, 1118 (D.C.Cir.2007); see Peralta v. U.S. Attorney’s Office, 136 F.3d 169, 175-76 (D.C.Cir.1998).

See Peralta v. United States Attorney’s Office, 136 F.3d 169, 175 (D.C.Cir.1998) (remanding for a determination of whether a DOJ component justified the referral of records to another component for processing); see also Hall v. Cent.

See Peralta v. United States Attorney’s Office, 136 F.3d 169, 175 (D.C.

Compare Peralta v. U.S. Attorney’s Office, 136 F.3d 169, 173 (D.C.Cir. 1998) (noting likelihood that "FBI is subject to the FOIA in its own name”); McGehee v. Central Intelligence Agency, 697 F.2d 1095, 1108 (D.C.Cir.1983) (noting that the FBI "clearly [is] covered by the [Freedom of Information] Act”) with Trupel v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 2007 WL 1238867 , *1 n. 1 (D.D.C.) (holding that "FOIA provides a cause of action only against Executive Branch departments and regulat…

See plaintiffs motion and opposition as to count 35 [Doc.# 97-1] at 3 [page number supplied], The Court must determine if the referral was justified or whether the “referral procedure resulted] in the improper ‘withholding’ ... of [d]ocuments[.]” Peralta v. United States Attorney’s Office, 136 F.3d 169, 175 (D.C.Cir.1998) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(4)(B)).