Request – Records on FOIA Process and Denied Requests

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the New York Freedom of Information Law, I hereby request the following records:

Date: May 29th ,2023

Peekskill City Clerk
Peekskill City Hall
840 Main Street
Peekskill, NY 10566

Attn: FOIA Officer

Subject: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request – Records on FOIA Process and Denied Requests

Dear FOIA Officer,

Under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I hereby request access to and copies of all records held by the Peekskill City Clerk pertaining to the process of handling FOIA requests and the last 300 FOIA requests that were denied by the city clerk's office.

For the purpose of this request, the records I seek include, but are not limited to:

1. Any written guidelines, manuals, or instructions provided to city clerk staff regarding the handling of FOIA requests.
2. Any internal memos, emails, or communications discussing the process, procedures, or policies related to handling FOIA requests.
3. Any records of training programs or materials provided to city clerk staff on FOIA request processing.
4. Any statistics, reports, or data regarding the number of FOIA requests received, processed, and denied by the city clerk's office over the past five years.
5. Copies of the last 300 FOIA requests that were denied by the city clerk's office, including any correspondence, justifications, and exemption logs provided to the requestors.

Should any portion of the requested records be deemed exempt from disclosure, I request the release of any reasonably segregable non-exempt portions in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). If an entire document is exempt, I request a justification, citing specific FOIA exemptions, and provision of an exemption log as per Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973) and Fisher v. United States Department of Justice, 772 F. Supp. 2d 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

Please note your obligation under the law not to destroy any records potentially responsive to this request. Any withholding, redaction, or destruction of responsive records without proper justification constitutes a violation of the FOIA and is subject to litigation, as confirmed in Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1980) and American Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Department of Defense, 628 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 5 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Jordan Lassiter

Subject: Formal Appeal of FOIL #259 Denial - Assertion of Legal Precedents

Dear Mr. Hartman,

I write to formally contest the denial of my Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request #259.

Your denial is predicated on the notion that the request fails to "reasonably describe" the records sought and poses an excessive administrative burden. I respectfully disagree with your interpretation.

I refer to the seminal case, Konigsberg v. Coughlin, 68 NY 2d 245, 249 (1986), in which it was firmly established that a request reasonably describes records "when the agency can locate and identify the records based on the terms of a request." The breadth of a request is not sufficient grounds for rejection, as the case underscores.

The precedent set by Konigsberg suggests that we cannot reject a request merely due to its potential to require a comprehensive review of records. The underlying principle of the Freedom of Information Act is that the public has a right to access information, and the agency has an obligation to provide such access, irrespective of the size or scope of the request.

Further, I draw your attention to Matter of Data Tree, LLC v Romaine, 9 NY3d 454 (2007), where the court ruled against the idea that a FOIL request can be denied due to its size or because compliance with the request is burdensome. The court expressly recognized that fulfilling a large request can be an administrative burden but viewed this as part of an agency's statutory obligations.

To comply with the spirit of FOIL and these rulings, I'm willing to narrow the scope of the request to make it more manageable. However, the denial in its current form is inconsistent with the principles laid out in the case law.

I look forward to a constructive conversation about how to fulfill this request in a manner that respects the public's right to access information and the constraints of the City of Peekskill.

Sincerely,
Jordan Lassiter