[00:00:01] Speaker 06: Case number 15-503, Pryzology Appellant versus Federal Bureau of Prisons. [00:00:07] Speaker 06: Mr. Newland for the appellant, Mr. Fathom Ross for the appellate. [00:01:04] Speaker 00: Good morning, and may it please the Court. [00:01:06] Speaker 00: Zachary Newland for Appellate Parasology. [00:01:09] Speaker 00: Your Honor, at issue today is whether Parasology has informational standing to compel production of certain records under 5 U.S.C. [00:01:18] Speaker 00: 552.A.2.B., also known as the eFOIA automatic disclosure provisions, via the Administrative Procedures Act. [00:01:27] Speaker 00: As a starting point, Your Honor, I'd like to point out that neither the district court nor the government have contended that, had Prezology submitted a specific request under traditional FOIA 552A3, that we would be entitled to standing in this case. [00:01:42] Speaker 04: So in the most narrow sense, Your Honors... Do you guys want this information for your own purposes? [00:01:48] Speaker 00: Well, yes, Your Honor, we do want it for our own purposes, but more particularly, Your Honor, I would say that... Have you said that anywhere? [00:01:54] Speaker 00: I believe we said that in our complaint, Your Honor. [00:01:56] Speaker 04: I didn't see it anywhere in your complaint. [00:01:59] Speaker 00: I would have to, and if I may, I'll rebuttal. [00:02:01] Speaker 00: I'd be more than happy to point that out. [00:02:03] Speaker 04: Don't you need to say, maybe you don't need to file a formal request, but don't you need to particularize the injury to say, there's this information, we have a statutory right to it, and we would like it? [00:02:14] Speaker 04: Well, Your Honor, I think that this Court's precedent points out, in Natural Resource Defense Council, as well as in dictums of atrocity, Your Honor, that the reason that we want the particular information is not relevant to the harm... I'm not saying you have to say why you want it or what you're going to use it for, but don't you have to do something to distinguish yourself from someone who simply was strolling through governmental websites and noticed [00:02:41] Speaker 04: that the government wasn't complying with the law here. [00:02:44] Speaker 04: How do I know that's not what this is about? [00:02:46] Speaker 00: Well, no, Your Honor, I don't think that this is what this particular case is about, because what this case is about is a statute that provides a particular right to information. [00:02:55] Speaker 05: Well, does it provide a right? [00:02:56] Speaker 05: The FOIA, what you call the traditional FOIA, does provide a right. [00:03:02] Speaker 05: It says that if you ask for the information, you can get the information. [00:03:05] Speaker 05: This section provides a duty on the government, but I think what we're getting at is does it, in fact, provide a particularized right? [00:03:14] Speaker 05: And if it does, have you shown that yours is violated any differently than the general public? [00:03:19] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor. [00:03:20] Speaker 00: To the first point, I would point out that it does provide a particularized right in that. [00:03:25] Speaker 05: Tell me where it does that. [00:03:27] Speaker 00: Well, Your Honor, I think that the automatic disclosure provisions merely serves... They clearly create a duty. [00:03:33] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor. [00:03:33] Speaker 05: But not every duty creates a justiciable right on the part of a particular plaintiff. [00:03:39] Speaker 00: Absolutely, Your Honor. [00:03:40] Speaker 05: So where are you getting a right from that differentiates you from the general public [00:03:44] Speaker 05: And more importantly, more directly, where are you getting a harm to that right that differentiates you from the general public? [00:03:51] Speaker 00: Well, Your Honor, if I pivot to the harm analysis first, the harm is particularly the denial of the information and the freedom... And how is that different than the whole world? [00:04:00] Speaker 05: You know that spending requires particularized harm as a particular claimant. [00:04:05] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor. [00:04:05] Speaker 05: You understand that? [00:04:06] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor. [00:04:07] Speaker 05: Now, how are you any different? [00:04:08] Speaker 05: than the general public with respect to the failure public. [00:04:13] Speaker 00: Well, your honor, I think this court addressed that exact argument in natural resource defense. [00:04:17] Speaker 05: Natural resource is a publication case or was it a traditional for you? [00:04:22] Speaker 00: It was actually a case under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Your Honor. [00:04:27] Speaker 05: Yeah, it was not even one, which is analogous to traditional FOIA or complication. [00:04:33] Speaker 04: It was FACA, right? [00:04:35] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor. [00:04:35] Speaker 00: I would say that it's analogous to eFoya in that the plaintiffs were asserting a violation of an automatic disclosure provision under FACA, and the district court [00:04:44] Speaker 00: put essentially the plaintiffs in the same position that we are here, Your Honor. [00:04:47] Speaker 00: They said, if you'd had a FOIA request, then you would have had standing. [00:04:51] Speaker 00: You don't have a FOIA request. [00:04:53] Speaker 00: And so we're going to say there's no standing. [00:04:55] Speaker 00: We dismiss the complaint. [00:04:56] Speaker 00: I believe, Your Honor, that this court held. [00:04:58] Speaker 06: The only thing that was held there in that case is that you didn't have to make a request. [00:05:04] Speaker 06: It didn't hold the plaintiffs in that case had standing. [00:05:07] Speaker 06: It set the case back. [00:05:09] Speaker 00: Well, Your Honor, I think that's an alternative in this case that this court may have, is that there's no request in this case. [00:05:15] Speaker 00: And I believe that the district court suggested that had there been a request, there would be standing in this case. [00:05:20] Speaker 05: Yeah, there might well be. [00:05:22] Speaker 05: This would be a different case if you had a request, but you don't have a request. [00:05:26] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor. [00:05:26] Speaker 05: I'm not sure how it is. [00:05:27] Speaker 05: You distinguish yourself from the general public. [00:05:29] Speaker 00: Well, Your Honor, I think that's because the right, rather, Your Honor, the harm that Congress has identified in creating a legally cognizable interest is the right to the information itself. [00:05:40] Speaker 00: Whoa. [00:05:41] Speaker 05: You just presuppose the conclusion when you say Congress period is a legally cognizable interest. [00:05:46] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor, I did, and I believe that the automatic disclosure is merely a burden-shifting device, whereas in traditional FOIA, Congress took the step of saying you have to present a request. [00:05:58] Speaker 05: And it didn't in the case of publication? [00:06:01] Speaker 05: That's correct, Your Honor, and I don't think that that's constitutionally... How did you create a legally recognizable interest in an individual that had been breached in your allegation? [00:06:10] Speaker 00: Well, Your Honor, I point out two things. [00:06:12] Speaker 00: One, the complaint itself stated particular alliance information that was sought. [00:06:17] Speaker 04: The complaint itself stated five... No, it didn't say that it was sought. [00:06:21] Speaker 04: It just gave some examples of things that weren't there, that the rule required to be there. [00:06:26] Speaker 04: But I've looked at your complaint numerous times, and at no point do you say [00:06:33] Speaker 04: and we want that information. [00:06:36] Speaker 04: We look at prisons, we want that information. [00:06:39] Speaker 04: I'm not saying you have to file a formal request, but to particularize the injury, you have to do something to distinguish yourself from anybody who's sitting on the internet strolling through government websites and says, I've seen a violation. [00:06:51] Speaker 04: You would agree that wouldn't be enough. [00:06:52] Speaker 04: If you were just, if you had no interest in prisons whatsoever, you just happened to be strolling around the website and notice, huh, these folks are complying with FOIA. [00:07:03] Speaker 04: That's bad. [00:07:04] Speaker 04: and you file that lawsuit, would that be permissible under Article 3? [00:07:07] Speaker 00: No, Your Honor, I don't think that that would. [00:07:08] Speaker 04: It would not, because it wouldn't be a particularized injury. [00:07:10] Speaker 04: You just happen to notice the government not complying with the law, correct? [00:07:14] Speaker 00: That's correct, Your Honor. [00:07:15] Speaker 04: OK. [00:07:16] Speaker 04: And your complaint, that's how I read your complaint. [00:07:18] Speaker 04: I don't see you ever saying there's a legal obligation to have this information in there. [00:07:24] Speaker 04: And we want that information in any way, shape, or form, whether a FOIA request, whether a letter, whether any articulation. [00:07:32] Speaker 04: I don't see that. [00:07:33] Speaker 00: Well, Your Honor, I think that this court's precedence, as well as the Supreme Court's precedence, point to the fact that the harm itself is not that we want it. [00:07:41] Speaker 00: It's that the information is not produced as it's supposed to be. [00:07:45] Speaker 06: Are you familiar with the National Environmental Policy Act? [00:07:50] Speaker 06: Yes, Your Honor. [00:07:51] Speaker 06: OK, NEPA. [00:07:52] Speaker 06: And the purpose of NEPA statements is to inform the public. [00:07:56] Speaker 06: That's one of the purposes anyway. [00:07:59] Speaker 06: So that means under your theory that an individual living wherever they're living, doesn't matter, can bring a lawsuit to compel and has standing to bring a lawsuit to compel a NEPA statement to be issued. [00:08:16] Speaker 00: No, Your Honor, I wouldn't take it to that extreme. [00:08:19] Speaker 06: The Supreme Court had a case like that. [00:08:21] Speaker 06: It's called the United States versus Richardson. [00:08:24] Speaker 06: And the Supreme Court held that the individual that brought that case did not have standing. [00:08:29] Speaker 06: And the reason they didn't have standing is they haven't differentiated themselves from anybody else in the general public. [00:08:36] Speaker 06: And I don't see how this case, the case that you brought, is any different than the situation in Richardson. [00:08:44] Speaker 06: Tell me what the difference is. [00:08:45] Speaker 00: Well, Your Honor, I think what I would go back to again is this Court's precedence in informational injury cases that one... That's a Supreme Court case dealing with informational injury. [00:08:56] Speaker 00: Yes, I agree, Your Honor, and I would not contest the Court's characterization of that case. [00:09:02] Speaker 00: What I would state is that... [00:09:04] Speaker 00: The primary, if not the sole purpose of FOIA is to provide information, to provide information to citizens of the United States. [00:09:12] Speaker 06: It's the same as the National Environmental Policy. [00:09:14] Speaker 00: Well, Your Honor, I would slightly disagree with the National Environmental Policy Act in that there – I believe that there are more than one policies furthered by that act. [00:09:23] Speaker 06: Well, Your Honor, I think FOIA is different, as the Court has repeatedly held in its decisions, as it did in Spokeo, citing a dicta with approval, the line of cases under public citizen, which... FOIA has a number of different purposes, and not simply to inform the public, it's also to keep the agencies honest, because they know that whatever decisions they make or whatever policies they adopt will eventually become public. [00:09:51] Speaker 00: I would agree with that, Your Honor. [00:09:54] Speaker 06: Then tell me what the difference is between your complaint and the complaint in Richardson. [00:10:02] Speaker 00: The difference between our complaint and the complaint in Richardson, Your Honor, is that the automatic disclosure ended up itself in the FOIA context. [00:10:10] Speaker 00: The reason, the harm, what we wanted to do with the information had our complaint been different and said, and this is why we want it. [00:10:17] Speaker 00: I don't think for constitutional purposes that would be relevant to the extent that it would change the standing analysis. [00:10:23] Speaker 00: We have an injury in fact in that Congress has created a procedural venue [00:10:28] Speaker 00: under EFOIA, the different provisions which were enacted in 1996, which we contend, their disclosure falls under Natural Resource Defense Council and are functionally the same as those in fact. [00:10:41] Speaker 06: Will you differentiate yourself from any other member of the public? [00:10:45] Speaker 00: Well, Your Honor, we believe we're a non-profit organization that advocates for the interests of prisoners' rights. [00:10:50] Speaker 00: So what? [00:10:51] Speaker 00: Well, our interests are different in that we [00:10:55] Speaker 00: pursue litigation sometimes, and also as well as prison reform strategies in Congress. [00:11:00] Speaker 00: And we need this information. [00:11:01] Speaker 03: Well, yeah, but that's not, you didn't allege that in your complaint. [00:11:04] Speaker 03: That's the problem. [00:11:05] Speaker 03: If you said that in your complaint, it would be a very different case. [00:11:08] Speaker 00: Well, Your Honors, unfortunately, that's the universe that I'm, that we're dealt with here today. [00:11:12] Speaker 00: And I don't think that the lack of stating those reasons, as Zivitowski points out, should be dispositive in and of itself. [00:11:19] Speaker 04: Was this dismissed with or without prejudice? [00:11:21] Speaker 00: I'm sorry, Your Honor. [00:11:22] Speaker 04: Was the case dismissed with or without prejudice? [00:11:24] Speaker 00: I believe it was dismissed with prejudice, Your Honor, but I'm going to go back and review for your question during my rebuttal time, if I could, and I can let you know definitively. [00:11:33] Speaker 00: If there are no further questions. [00:11:34] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:11:35] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:11:43] Speaker 02: Good morning. [00:11:43] Speaker 02: May it please the court, Peter Pfaffenroth for the Bureau of Prisons. [00:11:47] Speaker 02: The court has really zeroed in on the problem here, essentially. [00:11:49] Speaker 04: Was it dismissed with or without prejudice? [00:11:52] Speaker 04: I just can't tell from the opinion. [00:11:53] Speaker 04: I guess I don't have the order here in front of me. [00:11:55] Speaker 02: I do. [00:11:55] Speaker 02: It's on page 19 of the appendix, and it does not actually specify whether it is with or without prejudice. [00:12:07] Speaker 04: So that means without prejudice? [00:12:09] Speaker 02: I don't agree with that, Your Honor. [00:12:13] Speaker 02: Ordinarily, at the close of litigation, if they do not seek a timely amendment under Rule 59E to alter or amend the judgment, and that time obviously has passed, they instead sought to come to this Court. [00:12:27] Speaker 02: As the court pointed out in Hancock at the very end of that decision that this court issued in July, the time to seek amendment has passed. [00:12:36] Speaker 02: You know, you can't come to this court and say, yes, now is the time. [00:12:39] Speaker 04: I guess this all seems like a monumental waste of time. [00:12:42] Speaker 04: This is an ongoing injury. [00:12:43] Speaker 04: Or maybe it's an ongoing injury. [00:12:44] Speaker 04: Do you know if BOP now complying with this disclosure obligation? [00:12:48] Speaker 02: If you want to talk about the merits, I'm happy to, Your Honor. [00:12:51] Speaker 04: I'm just asking if there's an ongoing injury here. [00:12:55] Speaker 04: They wanted information. [00:12:57] Speaker 04: And they think they said the right stuff. [00:13:01] Speaker 04: At least I'm not sure it's there in the complaint, but he's going to educate me on rebuttal. [00:13:04] Speaker 04: But if we thought it wasn't there in the complaint, but they meant for it to be there. [00:13:08] Speaker 04: And as long as they said a few other things, it would be OK. [00:13:12] Speaker 04: And they could have said them, and they mean them. [00:13:14] Speaker 04: And here we are. [00:13:15] Speaker 02: On those issues, Your Honor, I would invite the Court's attention to a case called Tarasuk VBOP, which this Court summarily affirmed last summer. [00:13:23] Speaker 02: I believe Your Honor was actually on that panel. [00:13:26] Speaker 02: I can give you the case number if you'd like. [00:13:28] Speaker 02: Effectively, I believe they are really misunderstanding what the proactive disclosure requirements of the FOIA require. [00:13:39] Speaker 02: What they're asking for are all administrative remedy adjudications. [00:13:43] Speaker 02: There are literally hundreds of thousands of those throughout the country every year. [00:13:47] Speaker 02: Those are things like, I don't like the food. [00:13:50] Speaker 02: My pillow's too hard. [00:13:52] Speaker 02: These are not kinds of adjudications. [00:13:54] Speaker 02: Those aren't required to be disclosed as your argument? [00:13:57] Speaker 02: I believe that is a fundamental misapprehension of what the proactive disclosure requirements state. [00:14:03] Speaker 02: Let me just get you that case number in case you do want to look it up. [00:14:06] Speaker 02: The court in the summary affirmance order did not actually provide any analysis on this proactive disclosure point. [00:14:13] Speaker 02: I did argue it in my summary affirmance motion, and it was discussed by the district court, which this court summarily affirmed. [00:14:25] Speaker 04: It's a summary affirmance, though. [00:14:26] Speaker 04: It's not precedent in this court. [00:14:29] Speaker 04: Correct? [00:14:30] Speaker 02: Absolutely. [00:14:31] Speaker 02: The case number, just for your convenience, is 14-5278 and the summary affirmance is dated June 29, 2015. [00:14:37] Speaker 05: Does the United States concede that the statute even gives, the statute for you even gives jurisdiction for a court review of a failure to publish as opposed to the fairly explicit statutory creation of a remedy for the violation of what your opposing counsel has called traditional for you? [00:14:59] Speaker 02: So I think that their argument substantially would read the concrete injury requirement entirely out. [00:15:07] Speaker 05: Let's forget about the constitutional, that constitutional standing. [00:15:11] Speaker 05: Does the statute create a remedy for a failure to publish? [00:15:17] Speaker 05: I'm not aware of any kind of civil thing. [00:15:23] Speaker 05: Now, yesterday, the United States did not so concede, I will tell you. [00:15:27] Speaker 05: They were contesting what the statute even allows, whether there's jurisdiction at the statutory level for it. [00:15:34] Speaker 02: And I don't disavow that position at all. [00:15:38] Speaker 02: I'm not aware of any authority that has ever required, under the proactive disclosure requirements, the government to take a certain action. [00:15:44] Speaker 04: Why wouldn't the APA? [00:15:46] Speaker 04: be a basis for coming in and saying, assuming they made the standings showing. [00:15:52] Speaker 01: I'm not familiar with the case that was argued yesterday, and I don't want to, in any way, concede issues in this case. [00:15:59] Speaker 05: I didn't want to interrupt you, but I didn't want him to guess about something his agent did yesterday. [00:16:05] Speaker 04: Never mind. [00:16:05] Speaker 04: You can take the fifth. [00:16:07] Speaker 05: Thank you. [00:16:08] Speaker 02: I'm pleased to do so. [00:16:09] Speaker 05: When you get back to the building, it's the OLC case that was argued yesterday that had the APA issue in it. [00:16:15] Speaker 05: Thank you. [00:16:16] Speaker 05: And this judge was not on the panel with me yet. [00:16:19] Speaker 05: These judges were not. [00:16:23] Speaker 02: If the court has nothing further. [00:16:24] Speaker 04: You want to address the Johnson case? [00:16:29] Speaker 02: I'm sorry, Your Honor. [00:16:29] Speaker 02: Which case was that? [00:16:30] Speaker 04: The NRDC versus Johnson. [00:16:31] Speaker 02: Oh, NRDC. [00:16:32] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:16:32] Speaker 04: Because your brief was all about they have to submit a FOIA request. [00:16:36] Speaker 04: And that seems to me something to have standing. [00:16:39] Speaker 04: They had to submit a request. [00:16:42] Speaker 04: And that seems to be foreclosed by Johnson, as opposed to them having to make some representations about their desire for this information or their injury from not having this information, to be specific. [00:16:57] Speaker 04: Your argument is all about requests, and that's not accurate. [00:17:02] Speaker 02: Certainly, there would be no doubt that they have standing have a separate request. [00:17:06] Speaker 02: That would make it much easier. [00:17:07] Speaker 04: It doesn't have to be a request as opposed to a request. [00:17:09] Speaker 02: I think the court's characterization of the NRDC v. Johnson case earlier in this argument was correct, which is NRDC was a very limited decision. [00:17:18] Speaker 02: It said, [00:17:19] Speaker 02: that you still have to show the other requirements of standing. [00:17:23] Speaker 02: You must show harm. [00:17:25] Speaker 02: You must show a concrete, particularized injury. [00:17:28] Speaker 02: And the last paragraph of the NRDC decision makes clear that the court is offering no opinions on those other standing requirements. [00:17:37] Speaker 02: And that is fundamentally the problem here. [00:17:38] Speaker 04: But to show injury, you don't have to submit a FOIA request when there's a statute. [00:17:43] Speaker 04: You still have to show injury, but you don't have to do it through the particular [00:17:49] Speaker 04: medium that I had read your brief to be emphasizing to us today. [00:17:55] Speaker 02: Certainly I think the brief was showing an illustration of how standing could be established. [00:18:00] Speaker 04: Would you agree there's other ways I could do it when you're talking about this type of disclosure obligation? [00:18:08] Speaker 04: You have to file a request for them. [00:18:11] Speaker 02: You should not have to file a request for something which [00:18:14] Speaker 02: Yeah, there's some other requirement. [00:18:16] Speaker 06: If they filed a FOIA request, then it would encompass 100,000 documents, which is what you say every year. [00:18:28] Speaker 06: What would the charge be? [00:18:30] Speaker 06: for them? [00:18:32] Speaker 02: It would be very large. [00:18:33] Speaker 02: In the tariff case that I mentioned earlier, there was a declaration by BOP. [00:18:37] Speaker 02: I don't recall if it quantified the amount that would be required, but it said there were over 200,000 requests in that particular suit that they believed would be responsive. [00:18:47] Speaker 02: And that's obviously it. [00:18:47] Speaker 06: What would be charged? [00:18:48] Speaker 06: $0.30 a page? [00:18:50] Speaker 02: I could ask my agency counsel. [00:18:53] Speaker 06: $0.10 a page, Your Honor. [00:18:56] Speaker 06: $0.10. [00:18:56] Speaker 06: That's a big number with $200,000, Doc. [00:19:01] Speaker 02: That's certainly true, Your Honor. [00:19:02] Speaker 02: I mean, the idea that what the plaintiffs, the appellants here, have characterized as falling within the e-foya amendments of final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders made in the adjudication of cases, encompasses things like [00:19:22] Speaker 02: grants and denials of requests for compassionate release and private settlements outside of litigation, et cetera. [00:19:28] Speaker 02: These are the kinds of things which happen every day in all agencies. [00:19:33] Speaker 02: Well, maybe not compassionate release, but every agency presumably engages in settlements. [00:19:37] Speaker 02: But they don't have to publish every single one. [00:19:39] Speaker 06: Does the government comply with FOIA requests electronically now, rather than in hard copy, post them on a website? [00:19:49] Speaker 02: Certainly, every agency has something called an e-FOIA reading room. [00:19:55] Speaker 02: The Bureau of Prisons does in fact have such a reading room. [00:19:58] Speaker 02: It has things like staff manuals. [00:20:00] Speaker 02: It has the program statements that govern BOP. [00:20:04] Speaker 02: It has various financial records about its budget. [00:20:08] Speaker 06: So what I'm thinking about is that I file a FOIA request for a certain material and say, look, I don't want to pay the fee. [00:20:16] Speaker 06: Don't give me hard copies. [00:20:18] Speaker 06: Just post it on your website. [00:20:21] Speaker 02: Your Honor, that's not quite how it works. [00:20:23] Speaker 02: What the eFoya provisions require is that matters of particular interest need to go up on the website. [00:20:31] Speaker 02: So not every FOIA request is going to go on the web. [00:20:33] Speaker 04: You have to expect repeated requests for the information, correct? [00:20:35] Speaker 04: That's my understanding. [00:20:37] Speaker 02: That's right. [00:20:37] Speaker 02: And if the court were to look at the eFoya reading room for numerous agencies, you would see certain kinds of records are the ones that they think are [00:20:44] Speaker 02: substantial public interest and we've had other litigation in my office before this court in which we've talked about manners of trying to winnow down the burden financially on plaintiffs where we worked out on an ad hoc basis with the plaintiffs ways to provide the records electronically. [00:21:04] Speaker 02: It's typically on CD, there can be a charge per CD because of course that has its own processing fees but it winds up being a lot less than the per [00:21:11] Speaker 02: page copying charges that are established by regulation. [00:21:18] Speaker 02: If there's nothing further, Your Honor. [00:21:20] Speaker 02: We'd ask that the decision be affirmed. [00:21:27] Speaker 03: Mr. Mullen, we'll give you two minutes. [00:21:29] Speaker 00: I'm sorry. [00:21:29] Speaker 03: We'll give you two minutes. [00:21:30] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:21:31] Speaker 00: If I may just very briefly, Your Honor, I would not disagree with your characterization of the complaint upon review. [00:21:36] Speaker 00: I would reiterate our position that the injury itself that we have suffered is a denial of the information which [00:21:44] Speaker 00: We believe that we were entitled to receive under the automatic disclosure provisions and we believe that dismissing this case on standing grounds would require the court to say that the animating purpose behind the eFOIA amendments is in some way or shape or form different than the animating purpose behind the regular FOIA amendments. [00:22:02] Speaker 04: I guess all we would have to say is you haven't shown us [00:22:05] Speaker 04: how you were injured by the violation. [00:22:07] Speaker 04: We wouldn't have to say anything about the merits of the obligation. [00:22:10] Speaker 04: Wouldn't we just have to accept what you just said is that your complaint does not identify how you're injured by the lack of this information? [00:22:18] Speaker 00: Well, no, Your Honor. [00:22:19] Speaker 00: I think that our complaint sets forth that there is a violation of the statutory procedural right, which the Supreme Court has acknowledged in and of itself is enough to create standing. [00:22:28] Speaker 04: And we would con... Where have they said that violation of a procedural right is automatically standing? [00:22:35] Speaker 00: A violation of the FOIA rights? [00:22:37] Speaker 00: I would say in public citizens, Your Honor, they have stated that. [00:22:40] Speaker 04: That was FACA and they asked for the information. [00:22:42] Speaker 00: Okay, I agree with you, Your Honor. [00:22:44] Speaker 00: I would say that violation of the right to information under FOIA in and of itself is the injury. [00:22:51] Speaker 05: How does that differentiate you from the public at large? [00:22:56] Speaker 05: Well, Your Honor. [00:22:56] Speaker 05: It is black letter for a standing law that you have to have a particularized injury. [00:23:03] Speaker 05: for the claimant before the court. [00:23:06] Speaker 05: Well, your honor, I say that they valid their duty. [00:23:09] Speaker 05: That doesn't even speak to the question of whether you've alleged such an injury. [00:23:14] Speaker 00: Well, your honor, I think that this is directly analogous to, like we pointed out again, the National Resource Defense Council. [00:23:20] Speaker 00: And I understand the court's concerns about the particularization requirements here, your honor. [00:23:25] Speaker 00: But we would contend that we've done enough and we ask the court to reverse in demand. [00:23:30] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:23:31] Speaker 04: The case is submitted.