Reclaim the Recs. v. USCIS, No. 23-01997, 2025 WL 936924 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2025) (Engelmayer, J.)

Reclaim the Recs. v. USCIS, No. 23-01997, 2025 WL 936924 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2025) (Engelmayer, J.)

Re: “Policy and practice” claim arising from eighty-nine FOIA requests to USCIS

Disposition:  Dismissing plaintiff’s claim; granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to claims of individual plaintiffs; denying remaining motions as moot

• Litigation Considerations, Standing:  “USCIS argues that, because [plaintiff] did not submit any of the 89 FOIA requests at issue, it does not have standing to bring suit, and thus its claims must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”  “Plaintiffs do not dispute that [plaintiff] did not submit any of the requests in this litigation.”  “Nor could they.”  “[Plaintiff’s] connection to this case is merely that it is an entity on whose board two Individual Plaintiffs sit.”  “USCIS is correct.”  “FOIA ‘provides a cause of action only to a requester who has filed a FOIA request.’” “[Plaintiff] thus lacks standing to seek relief under FOIA.”  “The Court accordingly grants USCIS’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
   
• Litigation Considerations:  The court holds that “[b]ecause USCIS, in challenging plaintiffs’ policy and practice claim, has put in the record evidence outside the pleadings and moved alternatively for summary judgment under Rule 56 – and because plaintiffs have likewise offered evidence outside the pleadings and moved for summary judgment – the Court elects to resolve USCIS’s challenge to this claim as a motion for summary judgment.”  “This course would have been in order even had the parties not formally crossed-moved for summary judgment.”  “Here, [the parties had] ample . . . notice – the parties each affirmatively pursued summary judgment.”  “Accordingly, the Court resolves USCIS’s challenge to the policy and practice claim by applying the standards for summary judgment under Rule 56.”
   
• Litigation Considerations, “Policy or Practice” Claims:  The court relates that “USCIS seeks summary judgment on plaintiffs’ policy and practice claim, claiming that ‘there is no genuine dispute that the Agency has not intentionally evaded its FOIA obligations[,] but rather has made good faith efforts to comply with FOIA.’”  “Plaintiffs argue that summary judgment should be denied – and that their cross-motion should be granted – because, in connection with all 89 requests underlying their claim, USCIS failed to timely respond to these requests.” “The Court grants summary judgment for USCIS and denies plaintiffs’ cross-motion.”  “Assuming arguendo that policy and practice claims can be viable under FOIA, the evidence adduced here does not reflect deliberate flouting of FOIA obligations, as would be necessary under the precedents recognizing such a claim.”  “Instead, the assembled evidence reflects the more prosaic reality of a resource-limited agency coping with a rising flood of incoming FOIA requests and missing deadlines as a result, while steadily working through the backlog.”  “Regrettable though that situation may be, it does not support a policy and practice claim.” “The Complaint alleged the adoption by USCIS of a policy of failing to abide by FOIA, and in particular, ‘regularly and repeatedly failing or refusing to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests . . . [for] records within the time period required by FOIA.’”  “And factually, it is undisputed that USCIS did not respond to any of plaintiffs’ 89 requests within the FOIA timetable or by the date of the Complaint, and that, well after this litigation began, a meaningful subset of plaintiffs’ 89 requests remained outstanding.”  “It is also undisputed that USCIS continues to have a backlog of pending FOIA requests, . . . such that plaintiffs, as ‘frequent requesters’ to the agency, can plausibly expect that future requests will be processed outside the FOIA timetable.”  “The evidence adduced here, however, falls short of establishing any policy or practice by USCIS of willfully disregarding its FOIA obligations, of recalcitrance, of a lack of due diligence, of bad faith, or of a willful failure to explain belated productions, so as to warrant injunctive relief.”  “It instead reflects the quotidian reality of an agency contending with, and working through, a flood of FOIA requests that have crested anew each year.”  “This is thus not a case of ‘unexplained agency delay.’”  “Rather, it is a case . . . in which the explanation for delay sounds in staffing and budgetary limitations, not recalcitrance or disobedience.”  “As USCIS explains without factual refutation, during the past five years, it has been deluged by FOIA requests, which have increased annually from 195,930 in FY 2020 . . . to 577,843 in FY 2024 . . . .” “As USCIS further explains it, it has taken various short- and long-term steps to enable it to respond more quickly to FOIA requests.”  “The agency has also continued to use a streamlined ‘multi-track system, first-in, first-out process’ for triaging requests, and to employ a specialized FOIA unit.”  “Those steps have been held to demonstrate the good faith and due diligence of an agency whose processing of FOIA requests was challenged in litigation.” “Plaintiffs note that the length of the average processing time in this case – more than 300 days – exceeds that in many reported cases that have declined to find an actionable policy or practice warranting injunctive relief.”  “That distinction is valid. However, as USCIS responds, more is needed to establish a policy and practice claim, if such are cognizable at all, than a showing of long delay.”  “Although not necessary to this decision, USCIS’s progress during this litigation, including making substantial FOIA productions and disclosures, reinforce that the delays in this case stemmed from the demand upon the agency, not its defiance of FOIA obligations.”  “Accordingly, the Court holds, assuming that policy or practice claims are cognizable, the record here, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, cannot establish such a claim.”