Rutila v. DOT, No. 16-2911, 2022 WL 2359640 (N.D. Tex. June 30, 2022) (Boyle, J.)

Rutila v. DOT, No. 16-2911, 2022 WL 2359640 (N.D. Tex. June 30, 2022) (Boyle, J.)

Re:  Five requests for records concerning plaintiff's attempt to pass air traffic controller training

Disposition:  Granting defendants' motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:  Regarding one of plaintiff's five requests, the court holds that "[plaintiff] has not exhausted his administrative remedies."  The court finds that "[plaintiff's] request was not perfected until . . . the FAA received the time frame for the requested documents."  The court explains that "[b]ased on [the original] request, an agency would be unable to determine which [documents plaintiff] sought because such documents could cover decades-worth of materials."  "The FAA rightly requested a timeframe to limit the search to '"determine precisely what records [plaintiff] requested."'"  Because the FAA responded "twenty working days after perfection of plaintiff's FOIA request," the court finds that "the FAA requested fees within the twenty working days period."  Additionally, the court finds that "[plaintiff's] refusal to pay continued to toll the twenty day working period and the FAA did not process his request."
   
• Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records:  Regarding another of plaintiff's five requests, the court finds that the FAA "searched 'all systems that are likely to turn up the information requested.'"  "[T]he Court finds no issue with the FAA's search methodology."  The court finds that "the FAA searched broadly for the records [requested] and "followed up on" certain aspects of the search for records in response to plaintiff's request."  The court also notes that "[t]he FAA requested any records from all the [organizations within the FAA] that might prove responsive to [plaintiff's] request."  "Thus, [the court finds that] the search 'was reasonably calculated to discover the requested documents.'"
  
  Regarding another of plaintiff's requests, the court finds that "the FAA has adequately denied the existence of the [requested] Air Traffic Training Manual."  The court relates that, responding to plaintiff's argument, "[t]he FAA says an employee '[i]nadvertently . . . referred to the work instruction document' and 'no document exists with the title of "Air Traffic Training Manual."'"  "This language makes clear that the FAA does not have a document by that name."  Additionally, the court notes that the FAA provided plaintiff with a different document "which does not fit the 'exact description' of the Air Traffic Training Manual."  The court finds that "[t]his . . . evidences the FAA's liberal construal of [plaintiff's] request by providing him documents that related to his request."
  
  Regarding another of plaintiff's FOIA requests, the court relates that plaintiff requests data from "[a] system [which] 'organizes and displays' user profile data manually entered by the user or collated 'from various other sources (such as several system profiles)[,]'" and also a system which "'used to manage mailing lists and for email password resets prior to 2014.'"  The court finds that "[n]either system is configured to 'allow[ ] data to be exported.'"  "[B]oth systems allow a party to search for information and display the information on a screen."  The court finds that "'[a] screenshot, which amounts to creating a record, would be the only way to capture this information.'"  "Because no record exists, Defendants do not have a duty to create the record and produce it."
  
  The court finds similarly regarding another of plaintiff's requests.
   
• Procedural Requirements, Proper FOIA Requests:  Regarding another of plaintiff's five requests, the court holds that three portions of this request "did not reasonably describe the records sought."  The court analyzes all three portions and discusses how plaintiff's wording could be read as targeting different types of records.  Some of the requests also sought all "'related'" records, but "'[l]ife, like law, is "a seamless web," and all documents "relate" to all others in some remote fashion.'"  The court finds that "[t]his lack of specificity and overly broad request[s] demonstrate[] [plaintiff's] failure to reasonably describe the records sought."