SeeSpaeth v. Michigan State Univ. Coll. of Law, 845 F.Supp.2d 48, 57 n. 13 (D.D.C.2012) (severing claims prior to transferring, per § 1404(a)); Abuhouran v. Nicklin, 764 F.Supp.2d 130, 132 (D.D.C.2011) ( “[B]ecause § 1406(a) contemplates the transfer of a ‘case,’ ... the claims must first be severed into separate cases ....”); accordWyndham Assocs. v. Bintliff, 398 F.2d 614, 618–19 (2d Cir.1968) (recognizing that claims must first be severed into separate actions prior to being transferred or retained under § 1404(a)). For the reasons discussed below, the Court i) severs Plaintiff's preliminary injunction because it involves factual events distinct from those forming the basis of the complaint, and ii) severs Plaintiff's Privacy Act claim because it is wholly unrelated to his FOIA claim.
Bonfilio's motion for leave to add parties seeks to add individual OSHA inspectors as defendants. The proper defendant in a FOIA case, however, is the agency and the agency alone. See Abuhouran v. Nicklin, 764 F.Supp.2d 130, 131 (D.D.C. 2011) ( [A] federal agency is the proper defendant in a FOIA action ...").--------
FOIA "confers a right on any person to receive [requested] records" subject to applicable exemptions. Feinman v. FBI, 680 F.Supp.2d 169, 173 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Halperin v. CIA, 629 F.2d 144, 153 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ). Whether the IRS "properly searched for and disclosed records to Plaintiff[s] in response to a FOIA request simply has nothing to do" with whether the Montgomerys took valid deductions in relation to their partnerships or even whether an informant blew the whistle on them. Abuhouran v. Nicklin, 764 F.Supp.2d 130, 133 (D.D.C. 2011) (separating FOIA claim against agency from constitutional claims as misjoined). The "nucleus of facts," Page, 729 F.2d at 820, that the Court will need to consider in adjudicating Plaintiffs' FOIA claim—i.e. , whether the IRS's search was adequate and its claimed exemptions appropriate—is wholly different from what the previous courts assessed—namely, the Montgomerys' correct tax liability. The present suit is, therefore, not barred by res judicata .IV. Conclusion