A Better Way for BPA v. U.S.D.O.E., No. 16-35414 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal based on lack of standing of an action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), alleging that the Department failed to turn over documents requested by one of its members, on behalf of the organization. The panel disagreed with the government's argument that the submitted form did not adequately identify the organization as the requester. The panel held that the submitted form's unambiguous reference to A Better Way, confirming correspondence, and common sense make clear that A Better Way was the requester and consequently had standing to sue.
Court Description: Freedom of Information Act The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of a suit brought under the Freedom of Information Act by an environmental nonprofit organization alleging that the Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration failed to turn over documents requested by one of its members, on behalf of the organization. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing after finding that the electronically submitted Freedom of Information Act request form failed to adequately identify the organization, A Better Way for BPA, as the requester. In reversing the district court, the panel held that common sense must prevail in determining who is a requester under the Freedom of Information Act, and that in this case the online form clearly identified the organization as the requester. The organization therefore had standing to sue. The panel determined that viewing the form as a whole, it was clear that the document request was made on behalf of the organization, that the request was not for commercial purposes, that there was an obvious public interest, and that the requester had members. The panel further held that any confusion in the electronic form was of the Department’s own making and could easily be fixed. Moreover, to the extent ambiguity existed, the follow-up correspondence between the organization and the Department affirmed that the organization was the requestor.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.