Skip to main content

Pinnaka v. United States, No. 24-86, 2024 WL 4252776 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 20, 2024) (Joseph, Mag. J.)

Date

Pinnaka v. United States, No. 24-86, 2024 WL 4252776 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 20, 2024) (Joseph, Mag. J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning plaintiff’s immigration requests and inadmissibility determination

Disposition:  Granting defendants’ motion for leave to file an answer to plaintiff’s FOIA claims

  • Litigation Considerations, Pleadings:  The court notes that “[g]enerally, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(2), the United States, United States agencies, and United States officers and employees sued in their official capacity have 60 days to respond to a complaint.”  “FOIA, however, shortens the government’s response time to 30 days.”  “Within the 60-day deadline for Defendants’ response to the immigration causes of action, the parties stipulated to stay the case for thirty days to attempt an early resolution.”  “Defendants [subsequently] filed their motion to dismiss the immigration counts and an Answer to the FOIA counts.”      “Plaintiffs argue that Defendants failed to respond to the FOIA counts within the 30-day statutory time frame and neither requested nor received an extension.”  “Defendants move for leave to file their Answer instanter . . . .”  “While both parties hurl accusations of misconduct and deceit, the most likely explanation of what occurred here is exactly what Defendants concede – they ‘failed to discern that the FOIA portion of the complaint required an answer within 30 days and not the 60 days in which the Government is normally required to answer a complaint.’”  “This explains why the answer to the FOIA claims came at the same time as the motion to dismiss on the immigration claims.”  “In other words, Defendants assumed, though incorrectly, that their response to the entirety of the Complaint was due in 60 days.”  “While Defendants should have been aware of the law under FOIA, once again, the inquiry under excusable neglect is at bottom an equitable one.”  “And balancing the equities favors allowing Defendants to file their answer to the FOIA claims.”  “This case is in its early stages, no scheduling order has yet been entered.”  “While Defendants’ answer to the FOIA claims was technically due in late February, Plaintiffs did not move for default judgment until May when it responded to Defendants’ motion to dismiss the immigration claims.”      “There is no indication that Defendants were acting in bad faith when they filed their FOIA answer.”      “Rather, the fact they filed responses to all thirteen causes of action at the same time supports that Defendants were operating under the mistaken belief that the government had 60 days to respond, as it usually does in most circumstances.” “Finally, courts generally prefer to base their decisions on the merits of the case, rather than on technicalities.”  “Plaintiffs will still have an opportunity to pursue their FOIA claims, and Defendants can defend against them.”  “For this reason, Defendants’ motion for leave to file their Answer to the FOIA counts instanter is granted.”
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Litigation Considerations, Pleadings
Updated October 28, 2024