Farah v. DOJ, No. 20-622, 2020 WL 5017824 (D. Minn. Aug. 25, 2020) (Tunheim, C.J.)

Farah v. DOJ, No. 20-622, 2020 WL 5017824 (D. Minn. Aug. 25, 2020) (Tunheim, C.J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning plaintiff's criminal case

Disposition:  Denying defendant's motion to dismiss

• Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:  "[T]he Court will deny the DOJ's Motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because [plaintiff] constructively exhausted his administrative remedies."  The court relates that "[t]he parties dispute whether DOJ may rely on [defendant's] alleged response [prior to the filing of this case] via the automated system despite the response not having been fully transmitted to [plaintiff]."  In denying defendant's motion, the court finds that "[plaintiff] attempted to contact DOJ twice to check on the status of his request, but DOJ did not return [plaintiff's] call."  'And at least one of these calls was placed days after the decision was allegedly relayed to [plaintiff]; a reasonable person in [defendant's] shoes would have listened to the messages, realized that [plaintiff] did not receive the decision, and called him back to resolve the issue."  "Indeed, had DOJ returned the call, it is unlikely that [plaintiff] would have filed this action."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Pleadings:  The court relates that "Defendants argue in the alternative that the Court should dismiss [plaintiff's] Complaint or, at minimum, require [plaintiff] to amend his Complaint to reflect the current factual scenario and identify specific deficiencies in the now-received partial FOIA release."  "[Plaintiff] agrees that amendment is warranted, but argues against outright dismissal."  "The Court agrees that amendment provides the most efficient avenue to resolve this matter."