Hooker v. VA, No. 22-956, 2022 WL 17067380 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2022) (Honeywell, J.)

Hooker v. VA, No. 22-956, 2022 WL 17067380 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2022) (Honeywell, J.)

Re:  Five requests for “‘14 documents totaling 35 pages, 4 surveillance videos and 11 audio recordings’” concerning plaintiff

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff’s motion for relief from order

• Litigation Considerations, Mootness and Other Grounds for Dismissal:  The court relates that “[o]n July 1, 2022, the VA answered Plaintiff’s FOIA Complaint and admitted that Plaintiff made a FOIA request but denied that Plaintiff was entitled to compel the production of the documents as they were properly withheld due to a pending investigation related to Plaintiff’s trespass citation.”  “That investigation is now concluded.”  “On July 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Second Motion for Court Order Demanding Release of Improperly Withheld Records Not Under FOIA Exemption 7(A).”  “Plaintiff supplemented his second motion to provide a Rule 3.01(g) certification indicating that the VA communicated by email that it was producing the records to Plaintiff rendering his motion moot.”  “Given the updated conferral certification reflecting that the VA was going to produce the requested records, the Court denied the motion as moot.”  “It is from this order that Plaintiff seeks relief based on ‘fraud and misrepresentation.’”  “Despite acknowledging that he received the requested records from the VA, Plaintiff argues that some of the records have been redacted and he has discovered that there are more than the 14 documents totaling 35 pages.”  “[T]he VA states that all requested documents were produced by the VA on July 25, 2022, and again on August 5, 2022, rendering this action moot.”  “The VA explains that Plaintiff’s receipt of unredacted versions of documents in the criminal trespass case is irrelevant here given the different statutory obligations in criminal discovery versus an agency’s FOIA requirements.”  The court holds that “Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any fraud occurred here or to provide any legal basis why the court should reconsider its prior decision.”