"To make requests under FOIA, a citizen must follow the agency's published regulations regarding procedures to be followed." Reaves v. Jewell, 2014 WL 6698717, *3 (D. Md. Nov. 26, 2014)(citing 5 U.S.C. ยง 552(a)(3)(A)(ii); Pollack v. Dep't of Justice, 49 F.3d 115, 118 (4th Cir.1995). "FOIA provides that, subject to certain statutory exemptions, federal agencies shall 'upon any request for records which reasonably describe such records . . . make the records promptly available to any person.'" Id. (citing 5 U.S.C. ยง 522(a)(3)(A)). "
factual inferences in the plaintiff's favor, see Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep't, Inc. v. Montgomery Cnty., Md., 684 F.3d 462, 467 (4th Cir. 2012), where the original complaint contains no factual information addressing an issue subsequently raised in plaintiff's response to a 12(b)(6) motion, that subsequently raised issue cannot factor into a court's decision regarding a 12(b)(6) motion. See Shortall v. Baltimore Dist. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, No. WMN-14-3904, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72823, at *5 (D. Md. June 4, 2015) (holding an argument first asserted in a response to a 12(b)(6) motion cannot serve to amend the original complaint); Mid-Atlantic Chems. Corp. v. Shaw Indus., Inc., No. AMD 04-3988, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2398, at *3 n.4 (D. Md. Jan. 23, 2006) (accord); see also Texas Roadhouse, Inc. v. E.E.O.C., No. 3:14-cv-00652-JHM, 2015 WL 925894, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 3, 2015); Reaves v. Jewell, No. DKC-14-2245, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165542, at *11-12 (D. Md. Nov. 26, 2014). Here, the essence of USCIS's 12(b)(1) challenge is that because USCIS has provided the documents requested by LTC, LTC's complaint contains no live controversy and must be dismissed.
These statutes reflect โCongressional concern with open government, and especially, accessibility to government records.โ Greentree v. U.S. Customs Serv., 674 F.2d 74, 76 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (emphasis added). Whereas the Privacy Act allows โindividuals on whom information is being compiled and retrieved the opportunity to review the information and request that the agency correct any inaccuracies, โ Williams v. ATF, No. PWG-15-1969, 2017 WL 3978580, at *4 (D. Md. Sept. 8, 2017) (quoting Blazy v. Tenet, 194 F.3d 90, 96 (D.C. Cir. 1999)), the Freedom of Information Act allows members of the public to โobtain documents from federal agencies, and grants federal district courts jurisdiction to review agency compliance with citizens' requests, โ Reaves v. Jewell, No. DKC-14-2245, 2014 WL 6698717, at *3 (D. Md. Nov. 26, 2014). But no Defendant in this case is a federal agency, and no additional facts will transform any of them into federal agencies.
It is well established that parties may properly redact private personal information, including home addresses, personal phone numbers, and email addresses. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a) (requiring parties to partially redact individuals' social security numbers, taxpayer-identification numbers, birth dates, names of minors, and financial-account numbers); Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 08-2586-DKC, 2011 WL 665321, at *22 (D. Md. Feb. 14, 2011) (granting motions to seal exhibits containing, in part, "personal employee information"), vacated on other grounds, 575 U.S. 206 (2015); Reaves v. Jewell, No. 14-2245-DKC, 2014 WL 6698717, at *2 (D. Md. Nov. 26, 2014) (granting motion to redact certain personal identifying information, including plaintiff's personal contact information). Certain exhibits in the record do contain the home addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of both parties and nonparties to this litigation.
Courts have found good cause exists to redact the home addresses of government employees because of safety concerns. See, e.g., Macias v. Cleaver, No. 1:13-cv-1819 (BAM), 2016 WL 3549257, at *6 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2016); Reaves v. Jewell, 2014 WL 6698717, at *2 (D. Md. Nov. 26, 2014); Jones v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 2011 WL 6217415, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 14, 2011). Although there is a common law right of access to judicial records by the public, IDT Corp. v. eBay, 709 F.3d 1220, 1222 (8th Cir. 2013), "[t]his right of access is not absolute, [and] requires a weighing of competing interests," Feinwachs v. Minn. Hosp. Ass'n, No. 11-cv-8 (JRT/SER), 2018 WL 882808, at *3 (D. Minn. Feb. 13, 2018).
In Reaves v. Jewell, Judge Chasanow of this Court granted a pro se police officer plaintiff's unopposed motion to redact his Complaint and accompanying exhibits to remove from public view his home address, personal email address, and phone number. No. DKC-14-2245, 2014 WL 6698717, at *2 (D. Md. Nov. 26, 2014). Judge Chasanow concluded that the plaintiff's motion was "in essence a motion to seal," that protecting the officer's safety and preventing harassment constituted "good cause" under Rule 5.2(e), and that the plaintiff had offered adequate reasons to justify the removal of the documents under Local Rule 105.11. Id.
The Freedom of Information Act or "FOIA" "provides a mechanism for citizens to obtain documents from federal agencies, and grants federal district courts jurisdiction to review agency compliance with citizens' requests." Shortall v. Baltimore Dt. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. WMN-14-3904, 2015 WL 3545259 at *3 (D. Md. June 4, 2015), quoting Reaves v. Jewell, Civ. No. DKC-14-2245, 2014 WL 6698717, at *3 (D. Md. Nov. 26, 2014). Subject to certain statutory exemptions not at issue here, FOIA requires that federal agencies shall "upon any request for records which reasonably describe such records . . . make the records promptly available to any person." 5 U.S.C. ยง522(a)(3)(A).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(e)(1). Courts have found good cause exists to redact the home addresses of government employees because of safety concerns. See, e.g., Macias v. Cleaver, No. 1:13-cv-1819 (BAM), 2016 WL 3549257, at *6 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2016); Reaves v. Jewell, 2014 WL 6698717, at *2 (D. Md. Nov. 26, 2014); Jones v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 2011 WL 6217415, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 14, 2011). Although there is a common law right of access to judicial records by the public, IDT Corp. v. eBay, 709 F.3d 1220, 1222 (8th Cir. 2013), "[t]his right of access is not absolute, [and] requires a weighing of competing interests," Feinwachs v. Minn. Hosp. Ass'n, No. 11-cv-8 (JRT/SER), 2018 WL 882808, at *3 (D. Minn. Feb. 13, 2018).
The Freedom of Information Act or "FOIA" "provides a mechanism for citizens to obtain documents from federal agencies, and grants federal district courts jurisdiction to review agency compliance with citizens' requests." Short all v. Baltimore Dt. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. WMN-14-3904, 2015 WL 3545259 at *3 (D. Md. June 4, 2015), quoting Reaves v. Jewell, Civ. No. DKC-14-2245, 2014 WL 6698717, at *3 (D. Md. Nov. 26, 2014). Subject to certain statutory exemptions not at issue here, FOIA requires that federal agencies shall "upon any request for records which reasonably describe such records . . . make the records promptly available to any person."
provides a mechanism for citizens to obtain documents from federal agencies, and grants federal district courts jurisdiction to review agency compliance with citizens' requests. Reaves v. Jewell, No. DKC-14-2245, 2014 WL 6698717, at *3 (D. Md. Nov. 26, 2014). Subject to certain statutory exemptions not at issue here, FOIA requires that federal agencies shall "upon any request for records which reasonably describe such records . . . make the records promptly available to any person."