Shortall v. Baltimore Dist. U.S. Army Corp of Eng'rs, No. 14-3904, 2015 WL 3545259 (D. Md. June 4, 2015) (Nickerson, J.)

Shortall v. Baltimore Dist. U.S. Army Corp of Eng'rs, No. 14-3904, 2015 WL 3545259 (D. Md. June 4, 2015) (Nickerson, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning plaintiffs' property

Disposition: Granting defendant's motion to dismiss

• Litigation Considerations, Mootness and Other Grounds for Dismissal:  The court holds that "[t]he complaint does not allege an inadequate search by the Corps and their argument to that extent in their Opposition cannot constitute an amendment of the pleadings."  The court explains that "the 'controversy' in [plaintiffs'] complaint that 'Defendants fail[ed] to produce documents' fell away when the Corps produced documents."  "[Plaintiffs] had approximately two months to amend their complaint upon receiving the responsive documents, and may now re-file their FOIA complaint challenging the inadequacy of the search."
   
• Attorney Fees, Eligibility:  The court holds that "[plaintiffs] are not eligible for such fees as the Corps['] FOIA search and response was spurred by [plaintiffs'] communications rather than the filing of this action."  The court explains that "[t]here is no suggestion that the Corps' conduct was spurred on by the lawsuit or that the Corps took an intractable position that it was forced to change due to litigation."