Lukas v. FCC, No. 19-465, 2020 WL 1065700 (D.D.C. Mar. 5, 2020) (Lamberth, J.)

Lukas v. FCC, No. 19-465, 2020 WL 1065700 (D.D.C. Mar. 5, 2020) (Lamberth, J.)

Re:  Request for document filed with Universal Service Administrative Company ("USAC") by Windstream Communications, LLC

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion to dismiss and for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Mootness and Other Grounds for Dismissal & Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:  Regarding the majority of plaintiff's claim, the court finds that "[plaintiff's] claim is moot, as he has received all of those documents."  "As for the redactions in [the one remaining document at issue], [plaintiff] failed to properly file an administrative appeal regarding that specific decision."  "Although he filed an appeal regarding the agency's September of 2017 decision, he never filed an appeal of the November of 2018 decision, which is when the agency specifically made its findings regarding Exemption 4 and the redactions in [the one remaining document at issue]."  Responding to plaintiff's argument that "that [this claim] is not moot because . . . [plaintiff] contends that the FCC's General Counsel does not have the authority to dismiss an appeal, and the Court should issue an order enjoining this supposedly unlawful practice from being repeated," the court finds that [plaintiff] did not explicitly [bring a pattern-or-practice claim], nor did he allege sufficient facts in his Amended Complaint to survive a motion to dismiss on a pattern-or-practice claim."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Standing & Pleadings:  The court relates that "[plaintiff] seeks declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act . . . that USAC is not a government agency subject to FOIA and that documents in its possession are therefore not agency records under FOIA."  The court finds that "Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this claim."  The court notes that "the harm that [plaintiff] alleges in . . . is being forced to submit FOIA requests to obtain documents."  The court finds that "[b]ecause FOIA is specifically intended to prevent injuries caused by the government's refusal to turn over information, [plaintiff] does not state a cognizable injury under FOIA."