SSA Open Access DMF (Social Security Administration)

Dear Social Security Administration:

This letter is a formal Freedom of Information Act request for the following records.

A. Open Access DMF

I request the entire Open Access Death Master File, in native electronic format, as defined in 15 CFR 1110.2:

"Open Access DMF. The DMF product made available by NTIS which does not include DMF with respect to any deceased individual at any time during the three-calendar-year period beginning on the date of the individual's death."

I specifically do NOT request the Limited Access DMF, and refuse to participate in 15 CFR 1110 "certification".

The requirements of 15 CFR Part 1110 only apply to "any Person seeking access to a Limited Access DMF"; see 15 CFR 1110.1(b), limiting its applicability. This is reiterated in 15 CFR 1110.100(b), which says that "Certification under this part is not required for any Person to access the Open Access DMF made available by NTIS".

42 USC 106c(e)(1)'s FOIA exemption only applies to "the information described in subsection (a)", i.e. the Limited Access DMF information, which I do not seek.

###
All content after this line is part of my standard template.
###

# Prioritization

Please prioritize, in order:
1. the items & subitems above, in the order listed
2. within each item or subitem, most recent records first.

# Additional requests

I also request:

B. all records relating to the fulfillment of this request, such as FOIA logs, documentation of searches, referral emails, etc.

This part of the request is to be processed only after you have completed processing all of the above parts. This part does not request that you create any new record; rather, it requests the records that you will have created in processing the above parts, and will therefore exist before you conduct the search for this part. See McGehee v. CIA, 697 F. 2d 1095, 1100-05 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (agency must use time-of-search cut-off date, not time-of-request).

C. all records relating to any complaint(s), FOIA request(s)/appeal(s), and/or Privacy Act request(s)/appeal(s) made by me. This includes, but is not limited to:
1. all records relating to the processing my previous requests, complaints, etc;
2. all records containing the terms my name, email address(es), and other contact or identifying information, listed below my signature; and
3. all records containing any of my complaint, request or appeal identifiers.

Parts (B) and (C) must be processed only after you have processed the items above that line, i.e. such that at the time of the search, the records described will have already been created at the time you conduct the search. Part (C) must be processed after part (B) is completed.

Parts (B) and (C) may overlap with similar prior requests. However, the cut-off date is, at earliest, the date that you complete search on all of the above items. If you wish to administratively merge this request with a prior similar request, I consent on condition that you extend the cut-off date for the prior request, and provide rolling updates. Otherwise, you must treat this as a new request.

For all responsive records, I also request:

D.
1. all parts of the record (i.e. no portion of a record with some responsive portion may be considered "non-responsive");
2. all versions of the record, whether or not currently in use;
3. all record metadata, such as dates on which they were drafted, passed, went into effect, withdrawn, or similar events; person(s) / office(s) responsible; authors; IDs; revision numbers; etc.;
4. a detailed index of all claims of exemption/privilege, regardless of whether the record is claimed to be exempt in whole or in part;
access to inspect the record directly, in its native electronic format; and
5. if any classification applies, mandatory declassification review (MDR) under E.O. 13526, and the result of the MDR, including any declassified records.

Items in part (D) should be prioritized at the same level as the record they apply to.

# Timing

For all requests above, the "cut-off date" is, at the earliest, the date that you conduct the search.

The priority order listed above is only for items that may take extra time to respond to, and must not be taken as blocking response to an otherwise lower priority item that could be released more quickly than a higher priority item that is pending time-intensive search or review.

# FOIA IA notice

Please note that this request is made after the enactment of Public Law No. 114-185, S. 337 (114th), the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 (FOIA IA). The revised statute, as specified in the FOIA IA, applies to this request. FOIA IA § 6.

In particular, please note that:
1. you must provide electronic format documents, §§ 552(a)(2) (undesignated preceding text), 552(a)(2)(E) (undesignated following text), 552(a)(3)(B), and 552(a)(3)(C);
2. you may not specify an appeal duration less than 90 days, § 552(a)(6)(C)(A)(i)(III)(aa);
3. you may not withhold any record unless "the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption described in subsection (b), or disclosure is prohibited by law", § 552(a)(8)(A)(i);
4. you must segregate and partially release records where possible, §§ 552(a)(8)(A)(ii) and 552(b) (undesignated matter following (b)(9)); and
5. you may not claim deliberative process exemption for records more than 25 years old, § 552(b)(5).

# "Record" defined

For the purposes of this request, except as otherwise specified, "record" means any agreement, appendix, application, assessment, attachment, checklist, circular, contract, correspondence (including but not limited to email), data management plan, documentation of search parameters, email, email attachment, form, guide, handbook, index of records, information consent agreement, information sharing agreement, instruction, interpretation, kit, management instruction, manual, memorandum, memorandum of understanding, notice, notification, opinion, order, plan, policy, policy statement, processing note, publication, recording, referral, report, request certification form, request detail report, response, rule, script, standard operating procedure, submission, talking point, training document, video, or related record described, regardless of publication status.

# Anti-duplication exclusion

This request specifically excludes providing me with new copies of any records which have been already provided to me or published online for free (e.g. on the agency's online "reading room"), in full or identically to the form that would be provided to me under this request (i.e. with exactly the same format, redactions, and claimed exemptions).

This is only an exclusion on providing records under this request that are identical to those already provided to me or available online, and only if I am or have already been provided a link to the online version (if "available online").

This exclusion is only intended to limit unnecessary duplication or provision, not to limit what records are responsive to this request, nor to permit failure to disclose the location of a responsive record available online. If this exclusion would in any way increase the cost or duration to respond to this request, it is to be ignored to the extent it does so.

This request is to be treated as separate from all others that I have filed.

# Forwarding; multi-agency / multi-component records

Please forward this request to the FOIA office of every agency component and subcomponent that may have responsive records for independent processing, with a copy to me.

This request includes any records held jointly by your agency in conjunction with any other agency and/or department, in interagency and/or interdepartmental systems of records, or by other agencies or third parties (including contractors) acting pursuant any agreement with your agency.

# Minimal redaction

Please note that the FOIA requires you to service the maximum extent of my request that can be done via e.g. partial redaction of exempt material. If you believe some portions of a record to be exempt because it contains Sensitive Security Information (SSI, 49 CFR 15 & 1520) or classified information (18 USC 798), please provide a version of the record redacted to the minimum extent necessary to remove exempt information (e.g. per 49 CFR 1520.15), along with adequate information to describe the reason for each specific exemption.

# Estimates and rolling updates

In order to help tailor my request, please provide an upfront estimate of the time and cost it will take to complete this request, broken down any significant factors that would affect cost to service, number of records in each category, and your estimate of how many records in the category are likely to be exempt.

Please provide me with incremental updates, with updated estimates for fulfillment of the remainder, rather than having the entirety of the request be blocked until fully completed.

# No new records; electronic & original format

This request does not ask you to create new records.

If you determine that a response would require creating a new record that you do not want to create, please first contact me by email with an explanation of what records you have that would most closely match the information requested and might be acceptable substitutes, so that we can reasonably tailor the request.

In particular, I specifically request that you do not create new documents in response to this request that are modifications of a digital record, such as page-view images, print views, scans, or the like. No such creation or substitution is authorized by FOIA or the Privacy Act.

However, if the same or similar records are held in both electronic and paper formats, this request includes both the paper and electronic versions. The paper version and the digital version are distinct records, and each may contain distinct information such as handwritten or other markings on the paper copy and embedded metadata in the electronic version.

I specifically request both the original, electronic format record, and (if it contains any additional markings) the paper record.

To the extent that the native electronic format is proprietary or otherwise not in format accessible by widely available, open source software, I also request
1. an export of the proprietary format into a standard, open format, as described below, and
2. all proprietary software necessary to use and understand the original, proprietary format records.

# Rehab Act § 508 compliance

Please note that I am partially blind, use screen readers (such as VoiceOver and TalkBack), and need to process documents using computer code (which requires machine-readable data).

In accordance with 5 USC 552(a)(3)(B & C) (E-FOIA), Rehabilitation Act § 508, and FOIA IA, I demand that you respond using original, native format, electronic, machine-processable, accessible, open, and well structured records to the maximum extent possible — for both the content of your response, and any communications about the request (such as response letters).

This means, e.g.:
1. native, original format records rather than PDFs or other conversions (see note above re providing both native electronic records and scans of paper records, if both exist);
2. individual files per distinct source record (e.g. one .msg file per email), named clearly using the record's identifier, title, and date, rather than a single file containing multiple concatenated records;
3. records compliant with the Rehabilitation Act § 508, 36 CFR 1194.22, USAB ATBCB-2015-0002, and I​SO 14289­-1;
4. fully digital text records rather than scans, rasterizations, or OCR;
5. complete electronic records, as held on any computer (including phones, servers, backup servers, mail servers, workstations, etc.), including all headers and attachments, fully expanded e-mail addresses, full addresses for address "aliases", full lists for "distribution list" aliases, all embedded and external metadata, complete bitwise digital copies of the original file, all file headers, and all other file content;
6. blackout rather than whiteout redactions, with every redaction marked with all exemption(s) claimed for that redaction;
7. digital redactions rather than black marker or rasterization;
8. lists and structured data as machine-processable spreadsheets (e.g. CSV, SQL, XSL) rather than word documents (e.g. DOC, PDF, TXT, RTF) or partial printouts (e.g. PDF),
9. open format records (e.g. PDF, AVI, MPG) rather than proprietary format records (e.g. WordPerfect, Microsoft Advanced Systems Format (ASF)) (note above re providing both original, proprietary format records and open format records);
10. scans rather than paper copies;
11. digital audio/video files rather than physical tapes;
12. upload to your Electronic Reading Room (or other publicly accessible server) rather than personal transfer (for all items other than the item requesting records related to me or my requests);
13. email or (S)FTP file transfer rather than CD;
14. email correspondence rather than physical mail; etc.

# Compression, passwords, and uploading large files

Multiple files may be sent in a combined, compressed form using standard ZIP, TAR, GZIP, BZIP2, and/or RAR formats, or sent as separate files, at your discretion.

Do not use any password on any files, including ZIP files etc., unless a password was present in the original, native format (in which case, leave it unaltered, and send me the password).

If there are any files you prefer not to transfer by email (e.g. if they are >10MB), please upload them to me via the link listed below my signature. Doing so is secure, completely free to you, and I will be notified of the upload.

# No physical "duplication"; inspection & direct access

Please note that this request does not request that you physically "duplicate" records, as I do not want you to create any paper or other physical copy for me — I only want electronic versions (or scans, for records that are not fully available in electronic form). As such, I expect there to be no duplication related costs.

Furthermore, I specifically request access for inspection of the records, including direct electronic access, in native format, to any electronic records.

# No fees agreed to; non-commercial status; journalistic & public interest waiver

I am not currently willing to pay for servicing this request. I may be willing to pay if it is necessary; please send a detailed explanation of the costs and their statutory justification, and service the maximum extent of the request that can be done for free in the meantime.

This request is a qualified request for journalistic, public interest purposes. As such, I request fully waived fees, including both public interest fee waiver and journalistic fee waiver.

1. Fiat Fiendum, Inc. (FF) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, organized for charitable, educational, scientific, and/or literary purposes.

This request is a part of FF's bona fide educational and scientific purpose activities, which are public interest purposes as a matter of law.

2. FF's actions in matters such as this request are non-commercial. My personal interest in the records is also non-commercial.

3. Both Fiat Fiendum as an organization, and I as an individual, are representatives of the news media and entitled to waiver of all search fees.

4. I intend and am able to host and publish all received records online to the general public at no charge, as well to publish highlights, analyses, summaries, commentaries, and other creative, original journalistic and scientific work about responsive records through multiple online publications, as part of Fiat Fiendum's work.

5. The records requested are of significant public interest, entitled to waiver of all duplication fees, since
a. they are requested for 501(c)(3) public interest purposes;
b. as above, I both am able and intend to disseminate the files widely;
c. they would contribute greatly to the public understanding of the operations & activities of your agency, in that they are records that directly describe agency operations & activities, as well as the issues and matters described at the top of this letter;
d. they are not currently readily available; and
e. they are likely to be requested by others.

6. As mentioned above, I am explicitly not asking for any physical duplication, but rather direct server-to-server file transfer or email (or posting on your website). FOIA authorizes "duplication" fees strictly limited to your agency's actual costs, and mandates that your agency use the cheapest available requested methods. I consider the actual costs for server-to-server file transfer to be reasonably estimated by, e.g., Amazon S3's pricing (https://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/).

7. I request that, pending fee waiver determination or appeal, you proceed with this request as if it were in the "other non-commercial requester" category.

# Requester

This request is made on behalf of both myself, Sai (in personal capacity) and Fiat Fiendum, Inc. (in official capacity).

Please note that “Sai” is my full legal name.

# Request tracking numbers and estimated completion date

Upon receipt, and in every followup response, please state your tracking number(s) for this request, as well as your specific estimated completion date. 5 USC 552(a)(7).

# Communication about this request and method for responding

If you have any questions or updates about this request, please contact me by email, using only the MuckRock email address from which this request was sent. Please do not send responses to my personal or organizational email addresses unless I specifically request you to do so.

Please ensure that all of your responses comply with § 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, 36 CFR 1194.22, and UESB NPRM ATBCB-2015-0002.
In particular, please make all correspondence pursuant to this request — including notification and responsive records — by email, with native electronic format records, as specified in the request. I do not authorize you to send anything to me by physical mail unless I specifically state otherwise.

Do not respond using ZixCorp "Secure Mail" or any other method that "expires" records from being available. Use only actual email and direct attachments, or upload using the link below, unless I explicitly request otherwise.

# "Reasonable description" and tailoring

Please note that a request need only be "reasonably described" in the sense that you understand what is requested and where you can find it. A request is not improper merely because of the amount of responsive records. I will not agree to a limitation premised on this request asking for voluminous records. However, I may agree to a limitation premised on the difficulty of finding particular records or categories thereof, the quality of records available, paper vs electronic format, or similar issues.

If you believe that any of the requested items are not reasonably described, that they would be overly burdensome to fulfill, or that you need any further information, please be specific about what you consider vague.

Please include in any response about "reasonably described", or any request for narrowing, specific questions I can answer that would clarify matters for you; specific descriptions of what parts of the request more or less burdensome (and why) that could serve as the basis for negotiating a narrower request; and any indexes, finding guides, record categories, record storage practices, likely places that responsive records may be located, or similar information that would allow me to understand your concerns and better tailor the request.

Sincerely,
Sai
President, Fiat Fiendum, Inc.

Fiat Fiendum is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt corporation devoted to public interest journalism, government transparency and accountability, individuals' civil rights, and related issues.

Upload link and physical mail address are below. (Again, do not physically mail responsive records without my explicit request; send all responses electronically.)

1. Your fee waiver response only denies "public interest" waiver. It gives no basis for your baseless assertion that this is a "commercial" request.

FF has no commercial intent for this whatsoever, and is specifically prohibited by law from doing so; FF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.

The information will be made available to the general public without any charge, together with journalistic & academic analysis of the content of the database (the details of which of course depend on the results of that analysis).

Therefore, before even appealing your fee waiver denial, I contest your assertion of "commercial" category and request your fee assessment based on the "other requester" category (which e.g. prohibits charging for "review").

2. Your estimate of 247 hours of "search and review" time lacks any justification whatsoever. Please explain how you computed that estimate.

What we have requested is merely (a) a database that you are required by law to make publicly available in the form requested, and (b) some meta records about how your office has processed this request, which typically is no more than a dozen pages.

I cannot see ow that would plausibly take more than the free-quota amount of time to conduct the necessary search.

3. As stated in the request, my name is Sai. I am mononymic.

I don't know where you got the idea that I have a surname "Zai", but I do not.

Sincerely,
Sai
President, Fiat Fiendum, Inc.

I appeal your appeal response, and petition for rulemaking.

1. Your asserted 10 day deadline for response is illegal.

5 USC 552(a)(6)(A)(i)(III) requires that *any* "adverse decision" in FOIA provide at least 90 days for requester response.

I appeal it, and furthermore, I petition for rulemaking to amend SSA's regulations to comply with the FOIA Improvement Act as above.

2. Your fee response is grossly deficient, and illegal.

a. You are claiming that the request "is not related to the administration of Social Security programs".

The primary record at issue is the Open Access SSDMF, which the agency is required by law to maintain. 42 U.S.C. 405(r), 15 CFR 1110.2.

Are you claiming that obeying 42 USC 405, and/or maintaining the OA-SSDMF, is not "related to the administration of Social Security programs", despite being an affirmative obligation on the agency? Please explain.

The balance of records are the meta-records about handling this FOIA request. FOIA is also a Social Security program, as it is for every federal agency, and the records are about how you administer it (i.e. in responding to this request).

b. You are claiming 150 hours of "search" time.

"Search" means time spent finding responsive records. The Open Access SSDMF is a single database file.

You have not explained why it would take 5 full work weeks for agency staff to search for a single file, and the claim is facially absurd. It should take less than an hour to find one database file that you are required to already have readily available.

Have you failed to maintain the Open Access DMF in the first place, and so you're claiming 150 hours of search time in order to create it?

c. You are claiming 8 hours of "review" time.

There is nothing to review in the Open Access DMF file. It is defined by law as something that may not have any sensitive material in it.

So what exactly are you purporting to need to review, and for what?

d. You are claiming time for "organization of the publically available death information".

This sounds very much like you want us to pay for Social Security to compile the Open Access DMF, which it is required to do proactively. We refuse. You have a budget from Congress to do this work.

Please explain what other organization of information is required to respond to the request.

e. You are claiming time for "development of 508 compliant record layout".

This is illegal disability discrimination.

You may not charge extra for 508 compliance; it's an affirmative, proactive obligation. (For the record, I am partially blind.)

Furthermore, the request specifically said that the OA-SSDMF should be provided in native electronic database format, i.e. the format that you already have it in. There is no "record layout" to "develop".

f. You are claiming time for "development of the transmission method and format of the information
due to the extreme size of the data file"

This is frivolous. The request provided you with an upload link to which you can send multi-gigabyte files. The cost of transmission, at most, is less than one dollar.

Even if you insisted on sending it in physical form, the cost is to burn and mail one DVD-R, which should be about $5 total.

You're already required, jointly with NTIS, to have it readily available. There is nothing to "develop".

In total, your response appears to indicate that SSA has failed to maintain the OA-SSDMF, and is now trying to get us to pay for that. We will pay for no more than the actual cost of transmission.

Please explain how your cited estimates are applicable given if the OA-SSDMF already exists ready to be provided (as is required by law); and if it doesn't, why you want us to pay for its creation.

I look forward to your clarifying response.

Sincerely,
Sai

Dear SSA -

While our appeal is pending - we dispute that you have any right to charge us more than the cost of a DVD - we wish to have the requested files.

Therefore, on behalf of Fiat Fiendum, I hereby commit to paying your requested fee of $5,148 *as a surety*.

We have three conditions on this payment:

1. You will provide us with a detailed accounting of how the money was spent, and explain your specific justification for charging us to do work that the agency was already required to do by law.

2. We do NOT admit that we owe you anything, and in particular do not consider this to be payment of an owed fee. Rather, it is a surety in order to get you to perform the work while the fee dispute is resolved.

If you do not resolve the dispute in our favor administratively, we intend to sue you in Federal district court to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief that in fact you may not charge us anything.

3. We will pay you under either of the following two options (at your choice):

a) we pay you $5,148 now, and if we win in court, you pay us back the entire amount the court determines we did not owe you, *plus interest* on the that amount, computed per 28 U.S. Code § 1961 (starting from the date of payment), or

b) we pay you
i) after the court case is decided in your favor (in the amount determined by the court, if anything), or
ii) $5,148, if we fail to sue you within 3 years of you completing all response to this request.

If you demonstrate good faith compliance and regular progress, as a show of good faith reciprocity, we will agree not to sue you until you have completed the request. We would prefer to litigate on a clear record of the actual costs incurred and the reasons for them (which we will seek in discovery), rather than based on a speculative and unjustified estimate.

If we do not get reports from you demonstrating progress in any 2 month span, we will consider that a demonstration of bad faith on your part which nullifies this deferred-litigation agreement.

"We" above means me personally and Fiat Fiendum, Inc., jointly and severally. This means, in particular, that I will have the right to sue you pro se for the relief stated above, even if Fiat Fiendum is not a co-plaintiff, since I personally have a right to the money.

I note again that as to the OA-DMF, the format requested is exactly the same format as you have released it for many decades, and which we believe (and you do not dispute) is the format that you in fact store it internally. I have attached the format specification document for your reference. The 508 provisions of the request are satisfied by this format, as to database files such as the DMF.

We have provided you with a completely free means of transferring the DMF files to us - upload to the link below - and therefore do not believe any costs are warranted.

If SSA has a formal written policy prohibiting you from using such transfer, please provide us with a copy of that policy (which is hereby made part of this request). Once provided with that document, we will agree to supplement the surety above with the cost of the materials and shipping for DVDs containing the requested files to the address below, though again we will dispute that we owe it, dispute that such a policy is legitimate, and explicitly reserve the issue for litigation.

Please respond immediately to
a) acknowledge our agreement to pay,
b) state that you have begun work on the request, and
c) state that you agree to provide the DMF in its traditional flat-file database format described in the attached PDF.

Sincerely,
Sai
President, Fiat Fiendum, Inc.

RE: SSA-2019-000571 SSA-2019-000831 DOJ-AP-2019-005746

I appeal your appeal response, and petition for rulemaking.

1. Your asserted 10 day deadline for response is illegal.

5 USC 552(a)(6)(A)(i)(III) requires that *any* "adverse decision" in FOIA provide at least 90 days for requester response.

I appeal it, and furthermore, I petition for rulemaking to amend SSA's regulations to comply with the FOIA Improvement Act as above.

2. Your fee response is grossly deficient, and illegal.

a. You are claiming that the request "is not related to the administration of Social Security programs".

The primary record at issue is the Open Access SSDMF, which the agency is required by law to maintain. 42 U.S.C. 405(r), 15 CFR 1110.2.

Are you claiming that obeying 42 USC 405, and/or maintaining the OA-SSDMF, is not "related to the administration of Social Security programs", despite being an affirmative obligation on the agency? Please explain.

The balance of records are the meta-records about handling this FOIA request. FOIA is also a Social Security program, as it is for every federal agency, and the records are about how you administer it (i.e. in responding to this request).

b. You are claiming 150 hours of "search" time.

"Search" means time spent finding responsive records. The Open Access SSDMF is a single database file.

You have not explained why it would take 5 full work weeks for agency staff to search for a single file, and the claim is facially absurd. It should take less than an hour to find one database file that you are required to already have readily available.

Have you failed to maintain the Open Access DMF in the first place, and so you're claiming 150 hours of search time in order to create it?

c. You are claiming 8 hours of "review" time.

There is nothing to review in the Open Access DMF file. It is defined by law as something that may not have any sensitive material in it.

So what exactly are you purporting to need to review, and for what?

d. You are claiming time for "organization of the publically available death information".

This sounds very much like you want us to pay for Social Security to compile the Open Access DMF, which it is required to do proactively. We refuse. You have a budget from Congress to do this work.

Please explain what other organization of information is required to respond to the request.

e. You are claiming time for "development of 508 compliant record layout".

This is illegal disability discrimination.

You may not charge extra for 508 compliance; it's an affirmative, proactive obligation. (For the record, I am partially blind.)

Furthermore, the request specifically said that the OA-SSDMF should be provided in native electronic database format, i.e. the format that you already have it in. There is no "record layout" to "develop".

f. You are claiming time for "development of the transmission method and format of the information
due to the extreme size of the data file"

This is frivolous. The request provided you with an upload link to which you can send multi-gigabyte files. The cost of transmission, at most, is less than one dollar.

Even if you insisted on sending it in physical form, the cost is to burn and mail one DVD-R, which should be about $5 total.

You're already required, jointly with NTIS, to have it readily available. There is nothing to "develop".

In total, your response appears to indicate that SSA has failed to maintain the OA-SSDMF, and is now trying to get us to pay for that. We will pay for no more than the actual cost of transmission.

Please explain how your cited estimates are applicable given if the OA-SSDMF already exists ready to be provided (as is required by law); and if it doesn't, why you want us to pay for its creation.

I look forward to your clarifying response.

Sincerely,
Sai

Dear SSA -

While our appeal is pending - we dispute that you have any right to charge us more than the cost of a DVD - we wish to have the requested files.

Therefore, on behalf of Fiat Fiendum, I hereby commit to paying your requested fee of $5,148 *as a surety*.

We have three conditions on this payment:

1. You will provide us with a detailed accounting of how the money was spent, and explain your specific justification for charging us to do work that the agency was already required to do by law.

2. We do NOT admit that we owe you anything, and in particular do not consider this to be payment of an owed fee. Rather, it is a surety in order to get you to perform the work while the fee dispute is resolved.

If you do not resolve the dispute in our favor administratively, we intend to sue you in Federal district court to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief that in fact you may not charge us anything.

3. We will pay you under either of the following two options (at your choice):

a) we pay you $5,148 now, and if we win in court, you pay us back the entire amount the court determines we did not owe you, *plus interest* on the that amount, computed per 28 U.S. Code § 1961 (starting from the date of payment), or

b) we pay you
i) after the court case is decided in your favor (in the amount determined by the court, if anything), or
ii) $5,148, if we fail to sue you within 3 years of you completing all response to this request.

If you demonstrate good faith compliance and regular progress, as a show of good faith reciprocity, we will agree not to sue you until you have completed the request. We would prefer to litigate on a clear record of the actual costs incurred and the reasons for them (which we will seek in discovery), rather than based on a speculative and unjustified estimate.

If we do not get reports from you demonstrating progress in any 2 month span, we will consider that a demonstration of bad faith on your part which nullifies this deferred-litigation agreement.

"We" above means me personally and Fiat Fiendum, Inc., jointly and severally. This means, in particular, that I will have the right to sue you pro se for the relief stated above, even if Fiat Fiendum is not a co-plaintiff, since I personally have a right to the money.

I note again that as to the OA-DMF, the format requested is exactly the same format as you have released it for many decades, and which we believe (and you do not dispute) is the format that you in fact store it internally. I have attached the format specification document for your reference. The 508 provisions of the request are satisfied by this format, as to database files such as the DMF.

We have provided you with a completely free means of transferring the DMF files to us - upload to the link below - and therefore do not believe any costs are warranted.

If SSA has a formal written policy prohibiting you from using such transfer, please provide us with a copy of that policy (which is hereby made part of this request). Once provided with that document, we will agree to supplement the surety above with the cost of the materials and shipping for DVDs containing the requested files to the address below, though again we will dispute that we owe it, dispute that such a policy is legitimate, and explicitly reserve the issue for litigation.

Please respond immediately to
a) acknowledge our agreement to pay,
b) state that you have begun work on the request, and
c) state that you agree to provide the DMF in its traditional flat-file database format described in the attached PDF.

Sincerely,
Sai
President, Fiat Fiendum, Inc.

I said that we have agreed to pay you the amount you stated, as a surety, and intend to sue you over this afterwards.

That was a plain offer to pay under FOIA (while contesting your claim that we need to pay anything, let alone $5k), demand that you produce the requested records, and trigger for preservation of evidence.

We will be very interested to read your detailed explanation of actual costs incurred, such as what actions were "necessary to prepare [the SSDMF] for release" or to "determine whether [the SSDMF] must e disclosed". Please remember to document your actions thoroughly for the ensuing litigation.

Please note that it is also illegal to refuse to process a petition for rulemaking, such as the one contained in our response.

Please produce the SSDMF records immediately.

Sincerely,
Sai

SSA-2019-000831 / SSA-2019-000571

> Since you have exhausted your administrative appeal rights pertaining to SSA-2019-000831 (cross reference SSA-2019-000571), you may follow the options listed on Page 2 of our decision in response to your appeal to our fee notice.

... again:

I said that we have agreed to pay you the amount you stated, as a surety, and intend to sue you over this afterwards.

That was a plain offer to pay under FOIA (while contesting your claim that we need to pay anything, let alone $5k), demand that you produce the requested records, and trigger for preservation of evidence.

We will be very interested to read your detailed explanation of actual costs incurred, such as what actions were "necessary to prepare [the SSDMF] for release" or to "determine whether [the SSDMF] must e disclosed". Please remember to document your actions thoroughly for the ensuing litigation.

Please note that it is also illegal to refuse to process a petition for rulemaking, such as the one contained in our response.

Please produce the SSDMF records immediately.

Sincerely,
Sai

It's been over two months, with no response acknowledging our agreement to pay.

Are you refusing to accept payment, and therefore waiving your fee demand?

Sincerely,
Sai

(Note, this is re SSA-2019-000831 / SSA-2019-000571.)

Payment form has been sent under separate cover.

Naturally, we expect you to refund any difference between your $5,148 estimate and the actual amount expended on our request for a file that you already have in the format that you already have it (and the documents relating to this request itself).

Sincerely,
Sai

Still waiting for confirmation of payment and rolling response.

Sincerely,
Sai

I don't understand your request.

Do you want to host the FTP server (i.e. I will get it from you), or do you want me to do so (i.e. you will push it to me)? I would assume the former, since you presumably already have one set up, but the questions you asked me to answer really don't make sense for just me connecting to your FTP.

Do you just want to know my server's IP so it can be whitelisted for your firewall? If so, that's easy enough.

Are you asking me to set up a VPN tunnel for SSA to access our servers? That seems rather excessive and unnecessary. This is not secure data — it's public — and you have no need to access our intranet. I am not going to share our firewall configuration with you, nor give you intranet access.

Even if this level of security were appropriate, VPN is not the correct tool; SCP or rsync over SSH is. I am willing to make a SCP/rsync only SSH account for you if you wish. To do so, you will have to send me your public key (in standard SSH authorized_keys format); we do not permit password based authentication.

Likewise, if you'd like me to connect to your SSH/SCP server, I can of course give you my public key.

Please clarify what exactly you're intending.

And please have someone respond who actually understands what I just wrote, or you'll be wasting everyone's time.

Sincerely,
Sai

This still doesn't answer my questions.

Who is hosting the FTP server? What credentials are to be used, either for FTP or SSH?

What is the reason for such complications at all, when you could just tell me your public FTP server where you've posted this *public* data?

Sincerely,
Sai

What's the hold-up?

We paid you almost 4 months ago. For part A of our request, this should consist of a handful of flat files that you already have on your server.

Please explain why you've delayed handing over the data, and how you've spent our money so far.

Sincerely,
Sai

It's been over 6 months since we paid you for this. The primary request is one set of files that you should have already had on your main server, and which you have always maintained in exactly the form and format we requested.

So far we have gotten literally nothing - including a response to status update requests. We interpret your silence, far in excess of statutory deadlines, as a constructive denial of our request.

1. Please tell me why we shouldn't just file suit.

2. We appeal your constructive denial of our request.

3. We request OGIS mediation.

Sincerely,
Sai

Thank you for your response indicating that you will produce the records by July 17.

Could you please tell me:
1. the size of records (in MB),
2. the file formats, and
3. how you intend to transfer them?

Also, as previously requested, please provide a detailed accounting of how you spent our payment, and a refund of any amount in excess of your actual costs (by transfer back using the same financial details as for our payment).

Sincerely,
Sai

Your ETA date was a week ago. I've gotten nothing, nor a response to my last email.

Please provide a response to that email, updated ETA, and reason for your further delay.

Sincerely,
Sai

… two weeks ago, and no updates.

Previously, you indicated you will produce the records by July 17.

Could you please tell me:
1. an updated ETA/reason for the further delay
2. the size of records (in MB),
3. the file formats, and
4. how you intend to transfer them?

Also, as previously requested, please provide a detailed accounting of how you spent our payment, and a refund of any amount in excess of your actual costs (by transfer back using the same financial details as for our payment).

Sincerely,
Sai

Dear SSA FOIA -

Re:
SSA-2019-000571
SSA-2019-000831
SSA-2019-002016
SSA-2020-000511

This is in response to your July 29 letter (MR63294) and Aug. 31 email.

A. Clarification of your response to part A of our request (the OA-SSDMF)

Your July 29 letter is ambiguous and fails to provide the information necessary for us to determine how to proceed. It's premature for us to decide whether and how to file an appeal, since the record for appeal is inadequate to sustain review.

Therefore, before I respond further, please provide:

1. a detailed accounting of how you *actually* spent our money, and why those costs were necessary
2. reimbursement of the entire difference between how much we paid as an *estimated* costs, and your *actual*, FOIA-permitted costs
3. a count, and description, of all records withheld pursuant to 42 USC 405(r)
4. for all records withheld pursuant to 405(r), everything but the absolute minimum which you claim to be exempt — which, to my understanding, is only the "date of death" field; see (a)(8)(A)
5. an explanation of why the search cut-off date was Feb. 28 but your delivery date was July 29; neither search nor duplication could plausibly have taken 5 months.
6. an explanation of why your records cut-off date was Feb. 28, 2017, given that 15 CFR 1110.2 defines the OA-DMF explicitly in terms of *calendar* years — did you improperly release records from Jan-Feb 2017, or did you fail to release records from March-Dec. 2017?

As you know, FOIA operates on a strict actual-cost basis, not a proposed-price market-transaction basis. Fee estimates are only estimates, not price tags. Your July 29 estimate, and our payment, was exactly that: an *estimate*. And it did not have sufficient detail to determine why you charged us so much. For instance, please explain how much was in the categories of search, duplication, and review; what about it took 2 person-weeks; what review you conducted; etc.

It is completely implausible that your estimate, made before you even attempted to conduct a search or duplication, was in fact precisely accurate down to the cent. You owe us a debt of the entire amount by which we overpaid. We intend to collect interest on that debt if we have to sue you to get it back. See 5 USC 552(a)(4)(A).

Furthermore, I know that this material has been requested 3 or more times, (a)(2)(D)(ii)(II), and therefore you were required to make it public for free.

Your response claims that NTIS was responsible for making the OA-DMF available. NTIS claimed to me that they only handle the LA-DMF, and SSA is responsible for publishing the OA-DMF. See DOC-NTIS-2019-000203, https://www.muckrock.com/foi/alexandria-32052/ssa-open-access-dmf-department-of-commerce-national-technical-information-service-63295/

Please provide a definitive statement of SSA's legal position on which agency bears legal responsibility for making the OA-DMF publicly available without cost.

B. Clarification of Request IDs encompassed by your response letter

Your response referred only to SSA-2019-002016, but it seemed to be a response to the non-meta-records request, SSA-2019-000571 / SSA-2019-000831 / SSA-2020-000511. SSA-2019-002016 was a separate request, whose language you did not cite in your letter.

Please state whether your July 29 letter was a 552(a)(6)(A)(i) response to *all* of:

SSA-2019-000571
SSA-2019-000831
SSA-2019-002016
SSA-2020-000511

If not, please provide your (a)(6)(A)(i) responses to the other three, so that we can consolidate them for the purposes of appeal and litigation.

C. Meta-records request

I requested meta-records about the SSDMF in April 2019. SSA-2019-002016, https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/ssa-open-access-dmf-meta-records-71711/

To reiterate, Part A of the request was for:
"""
1. All FOIA or Privacy Act requests for the OA-SSDMF filed on or after January 1, 2012, including request SSA-2019-000571, together with all related request processing records, such as the response(s), appeal(s), appeal response(s), fee payment record(s), fee calculation(s), record(s) provided in response, etc.
2. All URIs where the OA-SSDMF file(s) are located, including SSA or NTIS intranet servers and SSA or NTIS public websites, as current.
3. All intranet webpages about the OA-SSDMF, as current.
4. All policy documents about the OA-SSDMF, issued on or after January 1, 2012, and as current.
5. All OA-SSDMF database format specifications, issued on or after January 1, 2012, and as current.
6. All OA-SSDMF usage guides, issued on or after January 1, 2012, and as current.
7. All OA-SSDMF database file metadata, including file names, sizes, last modified date, created date, etc., as current.
"""

You responded with a fee estimate of $382. I followed up, but have not gotten any further response.

Please tell me when you will provide a response to that request, or if indeed your July 29 letter does constitute your final determination about this request, since the identifier on the letter was assigned to the meta-records request.

D. Appeal re parts B & C

Your 10-day response demand was unlawful, as is your refusal to provide records responsive to parts B & C of our request (including even a fee estimate or best-effort attempt) unless we do something that 5 USC 552 does not require us to do.

5 USC 552 does not contemplate any such thing as "administrative closure". It simply is not a thing. Therefore, it violates (a)(6)(A).

This response has, therefore, been deliberately delayed to be more than 10 days, in order to deliberately violate your plainly unlawful demand and require you to defend your purported "administrative closure".

We also deliberately refuse to respond to your unlawful demand for additional information that has nothing to do with clarifying either the records sought or a fee assessment made, including whether or not we are still interested.

We note that you have repeatedly exceeded your *one-time* opportunity to toll based on a request for information, 5 USC 552(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I). You've asked for additional information multiple times before. This therefore does not qualify. Nor is it "necessary to clarify" anything about a "fee assessment", (a)(6)(A)(ii)(II), since according to your own letter, you've failed to make any such assessment. Your time to respond is, therefore, not tolled, and you are months over the 20-day limit.

You have also not made any timely claim of "unusual circumstances" or "exceptional circumstances" under (a)(6)(B, C), and therefore waived any such claim.

Because you failed to comply with FOIA time limit provisions, we have constructively exhausted remedy, (a)(6)(C), and we are entitled to insist that your failure to properly respond be treated as a final denial.

We appeal:
a) your constructive denial of all records under parts B & C of our request without any lawful basis whatsoever,
b) your violation of 5 USC 552(a)(6)(A)(i) as to parts B & C of our request,
c) your violation of 5 USC 552(a)(6)(A)(ii), as to your purported 10-day response deadline,
d) your "still interested" demand, which has no basis in law and thus violates 5 USC 552;
e) your pattern, policy, & practice of engaging in the above violations of unambiguous statutory requirements.

As stated above, we don't yet have a sufficient administrative record on part A for it to sustain appellate review.

E. Appeal re form & format

I specifically demanded that all communication be in electronic form, in certain specific formats, including that it must be § 508 accessible, as well as in a certain manner, i.e. by email as much as possible. I explained to you that I am partially blind, and my form & format demands are made both under FOIA and the Rehab Act.

You sent your response by paper printout. That is not accessible — and it directly violates explicit form & format instructions in my request.

I appeal your violation of FOIA form & format requirements and Rehab Act § 508.

Sincerely,
Sai