Unpublished Disposition, 849 F.2d 1475 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Martha B. Gaunce appeals pro se the district court's grant of summary judgment in her Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action against the FAA and NTSB. We affirm.

The FAA provided Gaunce with five of the seven types of records she requested. Asked to clarify the remaining requests, Gaunce stated she sought "every scrap of paper wherever located in the agency" which related to "her activity in the world of aviation." The FAA and district court found this request did not "reasonably describe [ ]" the records sought within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (3). We agree that the request was unreasonably vague, for it would not have "enabled a professional employee of the agency who was familiar with the subject area of the request to locate the record with a reasonable amount of effort." Marks v. United States, 578 F.2d 261, 263 (9th Cir. 1978) (citation omitted). " [B]road, sweeping requests lacking specificity are not permissible." Id. See also Mason v. Callaway, 554 F.2d 129, 131 (4th Cir. 1977) (per curiam) (finding request for all materials "pertaining to the atrocities committed against the plaintiffs" to be unreasonably vague).

Gaunce also complains that the FAA sought $13.25 before it would provide her with a copy of FAA Order No. 1600.20A. However, the FOIA allows copies of orders to be "offered for sale." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (2). See also 49 C.F.R. Sec. 7.93 (providing that fees "are payable in advance.")

Gaunce argues that the NTSB violated the FOIA when it failed to make records available for her inspection at its office in California and instead forced her to travel to the NTSB public reference room in Washington, D.C. This contention is meritless. NTSB regulations provide that records may be furnished through the mails, 49 C.F.R. Sec. 801.10(d), and the uncontroverted affidavit of the NTSB General Counsel showed that the NTSB materials were airmailed to Gaunce at her home address,¹  thus obviating any need for Gaunce to travel to Washington, D.C. Moreover, the FOIA requires only that the agency make records "available", 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (3), not that it make them available at the location of appellant's choosing.

There being no genuine dispute of material fact, summary judgment was properly granted.

AFFIRMED.