Hull v. U.S. Attorney, No. 16-2415, 2017 WL 3638183 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2017) (Moss, J.)

Hull v. U.S. Attorney, No. 16-2415, 2017 WL 3638183 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2017) (Moss, J.)

Re:  Request for "'all discovery documents'"

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff's motion for order compelling discovery

• Litigation Considerations, exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:  The court first finds that, "[i]n light of the liberal pleading rules applicable to pro se litigants . . . and the parties' agreement that [plaintiff] filed a FOIA request with EOUSA, the Court will construe [plaintiff's] complaint as seeking to compel EOUSA to release additional records pursuant to that request."  The court then finds that "[plaintiff] appears to concede (1) that EOUSA responded to his FOIA request before he filed the instant complaint; and (2) that he did not file an administrative appeal after receiving EOUSA's response."  "The parties have not addressed, however, whether there is some reason why the Court should not strictly apply the exhaustion requirement in this case."  "The Court will, accordingly, treat Defendant's response to the Court's Order to Show Cause as a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment; will afford [plaintiff] a final opportunity to address Defendants' contention that the Court should dismiss his complaint for failure to exhaust; and will permit Defendants to file a reply brief to address any new arguments [plaintiff] raises in his opposition."