Skip to main content

Sartori v. U.S. Army, No. 20-10141, 2021 WL 1609822 (11th Cir. Apr. 26, 2021) (per curiam)

Date

Sartori v. U.S. Army, No. 20-10141, 2021 WL 1609822 (11th Cir. Apr. 26, 2021) (per curiam)

Re:  Request for records concerning requester

Disposition:  Granting government's motion for summary affirmance of district court's denial of requester's motion for attorney fees

  • Litigation Considerations & Attorney Fees:  The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit holds that "there is no substantial question that [the requester] has abandoned any challenge to the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Army and denial of his motion for attorneys’ fees by failing to raise any argument to that effect on appeal."  "Even liberally construed, [the requester] does not mention the district court's orders granting summary judgment and denying his motion for attorneys' fees, he only reiterates his desire to get the information from the Army and explains why he wants the information and how he would use it."  "This is insufficient to fully brief the issues on appeal."

    "Further, even considering the merits of [the requester's] appeal, he fails to demonstrate any evidence showing that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the Army or in denying his motion for attorneys' fees."  "[The requester] does not rebut the affidavits submitted with the Army's second motion for summary judgment, which detailed the extensive record searches that were conducted in response to his FOIA requests."  "He also makes no argument to demonstrate why the second Vaughn index was legally insufficient, especially in light of the district court's in camera review."  "Moreover, as for the district court's denial of his motion for attorneys' fees, there is no substantial question that [the requester's] FOIA requests were motivated primarily for his personal use, which he concedes in his initial brief, stating that he desired the information because it would affect his ongoing criminal and civil li[ti]gation."  "This admission, when considered with the low benefit of the release to the public and the reasonableness of the agency's withholding – based on privacy concerns – outweigh the commercial benefit of the information to [the requester]."
Court Decision Topic(s)
Court of Appeals opinions
Attorney Fees
Litigation Considerations, Supplemental to Main Categories
Updated May 17, 2021