Skip to main content

Sai v. TSA, No. 14-403, 2016 WL 74397 (D.D.C. Jan. 6, 2016) (Moss, J.)

Date

Sai v. TSA, No. 14-403, 2016 WL 74397 (D.D.C. Jan. 6, 2016) (Moss, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning plaintiff

Disposition: Granting plaintiff's motion for leave to file and motion for extension of time; denying plaintiff's motion to compel service, motion for attorney fees, and motion for leave to file supplemental response

  • Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:  The court holds that "[t]he complaint seeks production of certain records under FOIA and the Privacy Act, but does not seek the disclosure of any [sensitive security information] orders . . . and Plaintiff may not assert additional claims for relief by simply raising them in a motion."
     
  • Attorney Fees:  "The Court denies Plaintiff’s 'Motion for attorney Fees of $0 as matter of law.'"  The court finds that "[i]n light of the Court’s holding that Plaintiff has not, and cannot, demonstrate 'eligibility' or 'entitlement' to fees and costs at this early stage of the litigation, it need not consider whether he would be entitled—if and when he does substantially prevail—to costs and/or to a nominal award of attorney fees as he asserts."  The court also points out that "[p]laintiff concedes that in a FOIA action, a pro se litigant cannot recover attorney fees for his own time spent litigating the case."
     
  • Litigation Considerations, Pleadings:  "[T]he Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Pleading."  The court relates that "[p]laintiff seeks leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) to add fourteen additional FOIA/Privacy Act requests to this case."  The court finds that "[p]laintiff has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that the addition of fourteen more FOIA/Privacy Act requests to this litigation would enhance the 'economic and speedy disposition' of the case and would not cause 'undue delay [and] trial inconvenience.'"  Additionally, the court finds that "[p]laintiff has failed to explain how the addition of these new requests would promote judicial efficiency."  Also, the court finds that, "[a]s for the two previously unexhausted requests [which plaintiff now wishes to include], it is clear that they do not substantially overlap with the five original requests."  "'Moreover, plaintiff will not suffer prejudice because he remains free to raise these new claims in a separate lawsuit.'"
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Attorney Fees
Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Litigation Considerations, Pleadings
Updated January 12, 2022