32 C.F.R. § 286.4

FOIA Public Liaisons and the Office of Government Information Services

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

(a) Each DoD Component has at least one FOIA Public Liaison. FOIA Public Liaisons are responsible for working with requesters that have any concerns about the service received from a FOIA RSC, reducing delays in the processing of FOIA requests, increasing transparency and understanding of the status of requests, and assisting in the resolution of disputes. Contact information for DoD Component FOIA Public Liaisons is available at https://www.foia.gov.

(b) Engaging in dispute resolution services provided by the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). These dispute resolution processes are voluntary processes. If a DoD Component agrees to participate in dispute resolution services provided by the OGIS, it will actively engage as a partner to the process in an attempt to resolve the dispute.

[82 FR 1197, Jan. 5, 2017, as amended at 88 FR 84238, Dec. 5, 2023]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1977–2014 · leading case: Tps, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Def. Def. Logistics Agency, 330 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tps, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Def. Def. Logistics Agency, 330 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2003). · cites it 5× “32 C.F.R. § 286.4 (g)(2). The focus of this controversy is interpretation of “business as usual” in the context of records that are requested in a particular electronic format.”

Tripp v. Dep't of Def., 193 F. Supp. 2d 229 (D.D.C. 2002). · cites it 5× “” 32 C.F.R. § 286.4 (d)(3) defines “compelling need” to mean: the information is urgently needed by an individual primarily engaged in disseminating information in order to inform the public concerning actual or alleged federal government activity.”

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, 795 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 2× “Specifically, the plaintiff claims the referral was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with the law” because the FOIA does not permit the NSA to refer FOIA requests in this manner and because the NSA’s referral failed to observe…”

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Dep't of Def., 355 F. Supp. 2d 98 (D.D.C. 2004). · cites it 3× “” 32 C.F.R. § 286.4 (d)(3). Those requesting expedited consideration are to be notified “within 10 calendar days” of DOD’s determination of whether to grant expedited processing.”

Serv. Women's Action Network v. Dep't of Def., 888 F. Supp. 2d 231 (D. Conn. 2012). · cites it 2× “” 32 C.F.R. § 286.4 (g)(2). Agencies should “apply a standard of reasonableness.”

Lechliter v. Dep't of Def., 371 F. Supp. 2d 589 (D. Del. 2005). “7-R, DoD Freedom of Information Act Program Part 286, 32 C.F.R. § 286.4 (5)(i) (“R5400.7”). (D.”

Chrysler Corp. v. Schlesinger, 565 F.2d 1172 (3rd Cir. 1977). “); 32 C.F.R. § 286.4 (b) (Defense Dept.); 41 C.”

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Nat'l Sec. Agency (D.D.C. 2011). “Specifically, the plaintiff claims the referral was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with the law” because the FOIA does not permit the NSA to refer FOIA requests in this manner and because the NSA’s referral failed to observe…”

Vietnam Vets. of Am. Connecticut Greater Hartford Chapter 120 v. United States Dep't of Def. & Dep't of Homeland Sec., 10 F. Supp. 3d 244 (D. Conn. 2014). “” 32 C.F.R. § 286.4 (d)(1). Here, the DoD’s letter to the plaintiffs on April 22, 2011 did not constitute a determination which the plaintiffs were required to appeal in order to exhaust their administrative remedies because it was not a final determination.”

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.