C.F.R. » Title 28 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › PART 16—PRODUCTION OR DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL OR INFORMATION › Subpart A—Procedures for Disclosure of Records Under the Freedom of Information Act

28 C.F.R. § 16.11

Other rights and services

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to entitle any person, as of right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the FOIA.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 86 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Banks v. Dep't of Just., 538 F. Supp. 2d 228 (D.D.C. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Banks v. Dep't of Just., 538 F. Supp. 2d 228 (D.D.C. 2008). · cites it 13× “See 28 C.F.R. § 16.11 (a). Components may charge search fees “for all requests — other than requests made by educational institutions, noncommercial scientific institutions, or representatives of the news media,” 28 C.”
Jud. Watch, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Just., 185 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D.D.C. 2002). · cites it 7× “Defendant explained that Judicial Watch would be categorized as an “other” requester and therefore entitled to only two hours of search time and 100 pages of records free of any search or duplication charge under 28 C.F.R. § 16.11 (d). See Nov. 10 Letter at 2-3.”
Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Dep't of Just., 365 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2004). · cites it 5× “See 28 C.F.R. § 16.11 (i)(2). Although it released thousands of pages of documents, the Department withheld 4,341 pages pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5, see 5 U.”
Votehemp, Inc. v. Drug Enf't Admin., 237 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2002). · cites it 10× “To aid its determination of whether to grant requests for fee waivers, the DOJ has promulgated regulations found at 28 C.F.R. § 16.11 (k), which provide guidance for determining whether factors designated in the regulations have been satisfied.”
Banks v. Dep't of Just., 605 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D.D.C. 2009). · cites it 14× “DOJ components “may charge for time spent searching even if they do not locate any responsive record or if they withhold the record(s) located as entirely exempt from disclosure,” 28 C.F.R. § 16.11 (c)(1)®, and for paper photocopies, 28 C.”
Dent v. Exec. Off. for the United States Attorneys, 926 F. Supp. 2d 257 (D.D.C. 2013). · cites it 9× “” 28 C.F.R. § 16.11 (a). By making a FOIA request, a requester is deemed to have agreed “to pay all applicable fees charged under [28 C.”
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 602 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2009). · cites it 4× “See 28 C.F.R. § 16.11 (k)(l-2). Under DOJ regulations, the public-interest requirement implicates consideration of four factors: 1) whether the subject concerns the operations or activities of the government; 2) the informative value of the information, or whether it will…”
Miller v. United States Dep't of Just., 872 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D.D.C. 2012). · cites it 4× “” 28 C.F.R. § 16.11 (d)(5). “In cases in which a requester has been notified that actual or estimated fees amount to more than $25.”
Stein v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 134 F. Supp. 3d 457 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 6× “Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.11 , Plaintiff was advised that the estimated fee associated with his FOIA request was $290.”
Latham v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 658 F. Supp. 2d 155 (D.D.C. 2009). · cites it 5× “Agreement to Pay Fees Under 28 C.F.R. § 16.11 , an agency may charge fees for time spent searching for responsive records, “even if [agency staff] do not locate any responsive record or if they withhold the record(s) located as entirely exempt from disclosure,” 28 C.”
Jud. Watch, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Just., 122 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D.D.C. 2000). · cites it 9× “” 28 C.F.R. § 16.11 (k)(2)(i) (1999). Requesters “bear[ ] the initial burden of identifying, with reasonable specificity, the public interest to be served.”
Skinner v. United States Dep't of Just., 744 F. Supp. 2d 185 (D.D.C. 2010). · cites it 4× “A DOJ component “may charge for time spent searching even if [it does] not locate any responsive record or if [it] withhold[s] *196 the record(s) located as entirely exempt from disclosure,” 28 C.F.R. § 16.11 (c)(l)(i), and for paper photocopies, 28 C.”
Show all 86 citing cases →
— 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(1)(4) — 1 case
Arabo v. Michigan Gaming Control Bd., 872 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(c) — 1 case
Jud. Watch, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Just., 122 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2000).
— 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(c)(2) — 1 case
Nat'l Sec. Counselors v. Dep't of Just., 80 F. Supp. 3d 40 (D.D.C. 2015).
— 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(e) — 5 cases
Miller v. United States Dep't of Just., 872 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D.D.C. 2012). “” 28 C.F.R. § 16.11 (d)(5). “In cases in which a requester has been notified that actual or estimated fees amount to more than $25.”
Gonzales v. United States, 298 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
Elgabrowny v. Cent. Intelligence Agency (D.D.C. 2019).
Elgabrowny v. Cent. Intelligence Agency (D.D.C. 2020).
Arenas Gonzales v. United States (D.D.C. 2018).
— 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(e)(2) — 1 case
Arenas Gonzales v. United States (D.D.C. 2018).
— 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(f)(4) — 1 case
Jeanes v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 357 F. Supp. 2d 119 (D.D.C. 2004).
— 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(i) — 1 case
White v. Exec. Off. of US Attorneys (S.D. Ill. 2020).
— 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(i)(4) — 1 case
Arabo v. Michigan Gaming Control Bd., 872 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.