28 C.F.R. § 16.9
Preservation of records
Each component shall preserve all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives under this subpart, as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized pursuant to title 44 of the United States Code or the General Records Schedule 14 of the National Archives and Records Administration. Records shall not be disposed of or destroyed while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the FOIA.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Coleman v. Drug Enf't Admin., 714 F.3d 816 (4th Cir. 2013).
Coleman v. Drug Enf't Admin., 714 F.3d 816 (4th Cir. 2013). “28 C.F.R. § 16.9 (a). FOIA re-questers have 60 days from the date of the DEA’s adverse decision to appeal to the OIP.”
Rizzo v. Tyler, 438 F. Supp. 895 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). “Accordingly, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.9 (c) 2 and (e) 3 (1976), plaintiff was *898 asked to make an advance deposit of $625 and to agree to bear the full cost prior to the institution of the search.”
Hidalgo v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 344 F.3d 1256 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “While Hidalgo’s appeal may have been timely, in a literal sense, it did not promote the purposes of the exhaustion doctrine. As Hidalgo pursued it before the FBI acted on his request, the appeal could not and did not place the substance of the FBI’s response before the OIP.”
Barouch v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 962 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2013). “§ 552 (a)(6); 28 C.F.R. § 16.9 (c); Wilbur v. CIA, 355 F.”
Toensing v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 890 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2012). “K (citing 28 C.F.R. § 16.9 (a)(3)). Though the FBI’s search of the ELSUR indices did not take place until after the plaintiffs commenced the instant action, the FBI was nevertheless unable to locate any responsive records in that search either.”
Latham v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 658 F. Supp. 2d 155 (D.D.C. 2009). “28 C.F.R. § 16.9 (a). The OIP may affirm, reverse or modify an adverse decision in whole or in part.”
Sanders v. Obama, 729 F. Supp. 2d 148 (D.D.C. 2010). “Sanders that it was terminating his appeal in accordance with 28 C.F.R. § 16.9 (a)(3) since he had filed the instant civil case.”
Lewis v. United States Dep't of Just., 733 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D.D.C. 2010). “See 28 C.F.R. § 16.9 . 2. DEA FOIA Request No.”
Royce Corley v. DOJ, 998 F.3d 981 (D.C. Cir. 2021). “(citing 28 C.F.R. § 16.9 (a) (2014)). And since “MRU ha[d] no record of having received a FOIA request from [Corley]” nor “did [Corley] identify any other component of the Department of Justice from whose action [he] might be appealing,” there was “no action for th[e] Office to…”
Cunningham v. United States Dep't of Just., 40 F. Supp. 3d 71 (D.D.C. 2014). “11 See 28 C.F.R. § 16.9 (a)(3) (stating that OIP generally will not act on an appeal “if the request becomes a matter of FOIA litigation”).”
Prison Legal News v. Lappin, 436 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D.D.C. 2006). “2, the BOP informed PLN that they could appeal the decision to the OIP pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.9 . However, the regulation cited in this opinion is the correct provision.”
Marino v. Dep't of Just., 993 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2014). “Marino that it was closing his appeal pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.9 (a)(3) because his waiver request was part of the litigation he had brought before this Court.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 16.9(a)(3) — 1 case
El Badrawi v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 583 F. Supp. 2d 285 (D. Conn. 2008).
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.