UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
______________________________
)
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR )
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 09-1999 (RWR)
)
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT )
AGENCY, )
)
Defendant. )
_____________________________ )
ORDER
On October 21, 2009, plaintiff filed its complaint, alleging
that the defendant had failed to disclose records responsive to
its Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request. After both
parties filed dispositive motions related to the plaintiff’s FOIA
claim, the defendant filed a notice of document production,
stating that it had released to the plaintiff an unredacted copy
of a document responsive to the plaintiff’s FOIA request. In
light of the defendant’s notice of document production, the
plaintiff was directed to show cause why the case should not be
dismissed as moot. The plaintiff’s response to the show cause
order states that the defendant has disclosed the requested
document and that the only remaining issue in the case relates to
attorneys’ fees and expenses. Because the plaintiff has received
documents responsive to its FOIA request, its FOIA claim is now
moot and the complaint must be dismissed in the absence of a live
- 2 -
controversy. See Drake v. F.A.A., 291 F.3d 59, 62 (D.C. Cir.
2002) (noting that the plaintiff’s “requests for information are
moot, because he [had] received all the documents to which he is
entitled” under FOIA); Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 125 (D.C.
Cir. 1982) (stating that the controversy becomes moot once the
disclosure which the suit seeks has already been made).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendant’s motion [4] to dismiss be, and
hereby is, GRANTED, and plaintiff’s motion [12] for summary
judgment be, and hereby is, DENIED as moot. The complaint is
DISMISSED as moot. It is further
ORDERED that the June 17, 2010 show cause order be, and
hereby is, DISCHARGED. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion [18] for attorneys’ fees be,
and hereby is, REFERRED to a magistrate judge under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 54(d)(2)(D) for a report and recommendation. This is a final,
appealable Order. See Budinich v. Becton Dickinson and Co., 486
U.S. 196, 202-03 (1988) (holding that “a decision on the merits
is a ‘final decision’ . . . whether or not there remains for
adjudication a request for attorney’s fees attributable to the
case”).
SIGNED this 30th day of June, 2010.
________/s/_________________
RICHARD W. ROBERTS
United States District Judge