Mora v. CBP, No. 24-3136, 2025 WL 1713252 (D.D.C. June 18, 2025) (Howell, J.)

Mora v. CBP, No. 24-3136, 2025 WL 1713252 (D.D.C. June 18, 2025) (Howell, J.)

Re: Plaintiffs’ allegation that defendants DHS and CBP had “violated the FOIA through ‘a nationwide pattern or practice of failing to make determinations regarding FOIA requests for an individual’s records within the statutory period’”

Disposition:  Granting plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider dismissal of FOIA claim; reinstating plaintiffs’ FOIA claim against DHS

• Litigation Considerations, Pleadings: The court relates that “[i]n support of reconsideration of the transferring court’s dismissal of DHS from both the FOIA and APA claims, plaintiffs argue that the transferring court ‘erred in construing FOIA’ too narrowly, as allowing a lawsuit only against ‘the component agency that received the records request’ and not the parent agency of that component.”  The court finds that “Plaintiffs are correct, and reconsideration of the dismissal of plaintiffs’ FOIA claim against DHS is warranted.” “Both parties, as well as the transferring court, agree that plaintiffs alleged filing FOIA requests with CBP.” “Though acknowledging that CBP is undisputably ‘a component of DHS,’ . . . the transferring court dismissed plaintiffs’ FOIA claim against DHS because ‘Plaintiffs do not allege that they submitted any FOIA requests to DHS[]’ . . . .”  “The reasoning urged by defendants and accepted by the transferring court was that FOIA requests submitted to CBP do not count as submitted to DHS, CBP’s parent agency.”  “This reasoning suggests that, where an agency delegates to a component the responsibility of processing a FOIA request, only the specific component receiving a FOIA request may be sued as to that request, and the parent agency of that component may not properly be named as a defendant, unless the parent agency received a separate FOIA request, even if identical to that submitted to the component.”  “This approach to FOIA lawsuits, however, is inconsistent with FOIA’s statutory text, which has generally been construed in this Circuit to warrant acceptance as properly named defendants either or both the agency and any component to which a FOIA request is submitted.”  “To do otherwise makes little practical difference and would incentivize the submission of duplicate FOIA requests to both parent agencies and any component that might retain responsive records, with concomitant inefficiencies and agency burdens in tracking and processing such duplicate requests.”  “Importantly, despite reaching different answers to the question whether a component may properly be named a defendant in a FOIA lawsuit, this Court has uniformly agreed that the parent agency is a proper defendant in FOIA litigation involving requests submitted to the agency’s components.”  “Defendant, meanwhile, cites no cases – and the Court is aware of none – holding that the submission of a FOIA request to an agency component is insufficient to establish that a FOIA request was submitted to the parent agency.”  “Nor do the cases suggested by the government and then cited by the transferring court support that conclusion.”
  
  Additionally, the court finds that “[s]ince the argument responds to the decision issued by the transferring court, plaintiffs could not fairly have been expected to raise it before the decision was issued, and the argument was included in plaintiffs’ initial filing seeking reconsideration, . . . meaning the argument was timely raised.”
  
  “Moreover, justice requires reconsideration of the dismissal of DHS.”  “Plaintiffs in this case claim not only that CBP has engaged in ‘an alleged pattern or practice of failing to respond to FOIA requests submitted to CBP,’ . . . but also that DHS has a legal obligation to ‘ensure Defendant CBP complies with its obligations under the FOIA[]’ . . . and DHS has not done so.”  “Specifically, plaintiffs allege that DHS violated this duty by, among other things, ‘fail[ing] to allocate sufficient financial or staffing resources for the handling of FOIA requests for individual records filed with CBP[]’ . . . .”  “If plaintiffs succeed in proving these alleged violations, the fact that ‘CBP would be bound by any decision this Court issues in favor of Plaintiffs,’ . . . would be insufficient to afford plaintiffs relief.”  “CBP has no power to change DHS funding or staffing decisions or change agency-level policies about addressing FOIA backlogs.” “Only a decision binding on DHS could provide plaintiffs with a complete remedy for the alleged violations by DHS.” “Justice therefore requires reconsideration of the transferring court’s prior order dismissing plaintiffs’ FOIA claim against DHS.”