A federal judge from the Western District of Oklahoma has dismissed the claim of a media organization, FOI (Freedom of Information Act, Inc.) Oklahoma, Inc., which sought more extensive records about the University of Oklahoma’s investigation into the employment of some of its student athletes at Big Red Sports and Imports for lack of standing.
However, the school lost on another front when the same judge denied the school’s motion to dismiss the claim of the Dallas Morning News for a failure to state a claim.
The impetus for the litigation occurred on August 10, 2006, when the Dallas Morning News served the University of Oklahoma with a request for records regarding the aforementioned investigation. On August 22, 2006, the university provided the Dallas Morning News with a number of responsive documents but redacted certain information from those documents, asserting such redactions are required by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, or FERPA.
Later that fall, the newspaper filed the instant action in the District Court for Oklahoma County seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the University under the Oklahoma Open Records Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.1, et seq. (OORA ). On October 10, 2006, the university removed the action to federal court. Three days later, the newspaper amended its complaint to join FOI as a plaintiff.
The university then moved to dismiss the claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Additionally, it asked the court to dismiss FOI for lack of standing.
In examining the motion to dismiss, the court reviewed the university’s argument that it had fully complied with OORA and had done nothing wrong.
“Having carefully reviewed the Petition and the Amendment to Petition, the Court finds that the Dallas Morning News has sufficiently alleged that it was improperly denied access to records in violation of the OORA,” the court held. “Specifically, the Dallas Morning News alleges that the records at issue are not subject to the FERPA and that even if they are, the FERPA should be construed as inapplicable to information that is already public or, alternatively, that the University redacted more information than authorized by the FERPA. See Petition at PP 8-9. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Dallas Morning News has stated a claim for relief under the OORA and that this action, therefore, should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.”
The court then turned to the university’s assertion that FOI lacked standing to bring the action.
It wrote that “to have standing in federal court, a party must meet the following requirements: First, the plaintiff must have suffered an ‘injury in fact’ – an invasion of a legally protected interest that is both (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the challenged action of the defendant – the injury must be ‘fairly traceable’ to the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party. Finally, it must be likely, not merely speculative, that a favorable judgment will redress the plaintiff’s injury. Utah Ass’n of Counties v. Bush, 455 F.3d 1094, 1099-1100 (10th Cir. 2006).
“Further, even in the absence of injury to itself, an association may have standing solely as the representative of its members. . . . The association must allege that its members, or any one of them, are suffering immediate or threatened injury as a result of the challenged action of the sort that would make out a justifiable case had the members themselves brought suit. . . . So long as this can be established, and so long as the nature of the claim and of the relief sought does not make the individual participation of each injured party indispensable to proper resolution of the cause, the association may be an appropriate representative of its members, entitled to invoke the court’s jurisdiction.
Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 342-43, 97 S. Ct. 2434, 53 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1977) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Thus, an association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when: (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. Id. at 343.
“Having carefully reviewed FOI’s allegations, the Court finds that FOI has failed to set forth sufficient allegations to establish that either it or any of its members have standing to bring the instant action. Specifically, the Court finds that FOI has not alleged any “injury in fact” to itself or any of its members. The Court further finds that FOI has not alleged that either it or any of its members have in fact requested and been denied access to the subject documents as required by Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.17(B). Accordingly, the Court finds that FOI should be dismissed for lack of standing.”
Dallas Morning News, L.P., a limited partnership et al. vs. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Board of Regents of The University of Oklahoma; W.D. Okla.; Case No. CIV-06-1104-M, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31359; 4/27/07
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Michael Minnis, Doerner Saunders Daniel & Anderson LLP, Oklahoma City, OK; S Douglas Dodd, Doerner Saunders Daniel & Anderson, Tulsa, OK. (for defendants) Jason D Leonard, Norman, OK; Joseph Harroz, Jr, Shawnae E Robey, University of Oklahoma-Ofc of Legal Counsel, Norman, OK.
