UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DAVID W. BROWN, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 19-cv-2853 (BAH) v. Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff David Brown initiated this lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court after his two requests for documents from the defendant, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”), were closed when plaintiff did not accede to defendant’s demand that he clarify his requests. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, Att. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 6, 9, 25, 27, ECF No. 1-1. In addition, defendant refused to classify plaintiff as a “representative of the news media,” which classification is necessary to limit the fees WMATA could have charged him to produce the documents he requested. Id. ¶¶ 18, 37; WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS POLICY (“PARP”) § 8.2 (2019).1 Defendant removed the case to this Court, see Notice of Removal, and has now moved to dismiss the complaint, Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (“Def.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 8, for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or alternatively, for summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and 56. See generally Def.’s Mem. of Points and Auths. in Support of Def.’s Mot. 1 The PARP may be found at: http://www.wmata.com/about/records/public_docs/upload/PI-209-203_Public- 20Access-20to-20Records_FINAL-2001-2017-202019.pdf. 1 (“Def.’s Mem.”), ECF No. 8. Plaintiff opposes defendant’s bricolage motion and seeks partial summary judgment on his claims that WMATA unlawfully refused to categorize him as a representative of the news media. See Pl.’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Pl.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 14. As explained below, defendant’s motion is granted in part and denied in part, while plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied in whole. Specifically, the defendant properly closed one of plaintiff’s two requests and is therefore entitled to summary judgment on that claim, but improperly closed the other, for which defendant’s motion for summary judgment is therefore denied. Plaintiff’s challenge to defendant’s failure to classify him as a news media representative for fee purposes with respect to his one surviving request is dismissed because plaintiff has failed to allege facts that he is entitled to the reduction in fees he seeks. I. BACKGROUND On January 27, 2019, plaintiff requested three WMATA handbooks pursuant to that agency’s Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) equivalent, the Public Access to Records Policy. Decl. of Lynn Bowersox (“Def.’s Decl.”), Att. A (“Handbook Request”) at 11, ECF No. 8-12; Def.’s Statement of Material Facts (“Def.’s Statement of Facts”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 83; see also PARP § 1.0 (explaining that WMATA “interpret[s] and appl[ies] [PARP] consistent with the federal [FOIA]”). He sought handbooks related to “Metrorail safety rules and procedures,” “Metrorail station standard operating procedures,” as well as the employee handbook for WMATA’s Department of Bus Service. Def.’s Decl., Att. B (“Def.’s Resp. to Handbook Request”) at 13, 2 Several documents are attached to the declaration of Lynn Bowersox, WMATA’s Senior ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals