Charles Neuman, Appellant v. United States of America, et al., Appellees
Upon consideration of the motion for summary reversal; the order to show cause filed October 18, 2016; and the corrected motion for summary affirmance and the response thereto, it is
ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted and the motion for summary reversal be denied. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam).
The district court properly dismissed appellant's Freedom of Information Act case because all information requested regarding third party Justin Nichols was released to appellant. See Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 125 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (citing Crooker v. State Department, 628 F.2d 9, 10 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (per curiam) (“Once the records are produced[,] the substance of the controversy disappears and becomes moot since the disclosure which the suit seeks has already been made.”)). The district court's June 3, 2015 order did not state that a completely unredacted version of Report of Investigation No. 72 would be released to appellant. Rather, it stated that “the information regarding Nichols ․ has now been released in its entirety ․” Order at 2 (D.D.C. June 3, 2015). The remaining redactions in Report of Investigation No. 72 related to other individuals. See declaration of Fernando Pineiro, filed Oct. 31, 2014, ¶¶ 15-19.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.