Request to NASA's Johnson Space Center for communications with Canadian filmmaker Matt Johnson and other docs

Dear Brett Carollo,

Your request was received by NASA Public Access Link. The request was assigned tracking #24-00983-F-JSC. You seek the following:

Any communications between Canadian filmmaker Matt Johnson (born October 5, 1985, in Toronto, Canada) and the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC), between the years 2015 and 2017, during which time Mr. Johnson reportedly filmed portions of his film "Operation Avalanche" (2016) inside of JSC, claiming he was making a documentary. Since it stands to reason that, even if he lied his way into the facility by claiming to be making a documentary, he would still have to obtain some sort of permission in order to film in restricted locations. Therefore, I additionally request any documentation produced as a result of Mr. Johnson's visit to JSC to film scenes for "Operation Avalanche." (Date Range for Record Search: From 1/1/2015 To 12/31/2017)

Please log into your account and review your submission. The application address is https://pal.hq.nasa.gov/.

Thank you,
NASA Public Access Link

Dear Brett Carollo,

The status of your request #24-00983-F-JSC has been updated to the following status 'Received'. To log into the NASA Public Access Link click on the Application URL below.

https://pal.hq.nasa.gov/

Sincerely,
NASA Public Access Link

Dear Mr. Carollo,

NASA needs clarification in order to conduct a reasonable search for this request.

Also, while requesters are free to use MuckRock's services to submit requests, they need to ensure that requests are properly submitted. We have just now received this request since it was misdirected. The Public Access Link is the best way to ensure FOIA requests are promptly received.

Respectfully,

Robert

Dear Mr. Carollo,

Thank you for your email.

I wanted to let provide you some background regarding my interpretation of your request so you can better understand NASA’s actions taken upon it. NASA must treat every request, and its FOIA program generally, fairly in accordance with its regulations and the FOIA statute as if could be contested. We turn to FOIA case law whenever a matter is ambiguous and we must decide how we will treat a request. A well settled aspect of FOIA, and many other areas of law, is that every word of a statute or declaration (which FOIA request descriptions and other evidence provided by requesters are) has ordinary meaning and should be given that effect, unless they are defined in the relevant statute. To be more specific to your request, I do not necessarily think it is overly-broad as most “any and all” requests are. Rather the use of the word “any” is too nonspecific. If I were to apply the ordinary meaning of the word “any” to your request, then NASA could simply provide you with one record of its choosing and arguably have performed its statutory diligence upon your request. I think we both can agree that is not the outcome you are seeking. Arguably, the subject matter as you stated in your initial request description is not too broad for NASA to be able to task a reasonable search that can be calculated to capture “any and all” records as long as you limited the number of offices or programs you would like us to search.

Also, while I know that NARA guidance uses broad terms such as “communications” and “correspondence” to describe records management, and that FOIA requesters have at times been required to phrase their requests using that type of terminology; I do not find it necessary, and find that it is preferable for requesters to use terms they would be more likely to use conversationally such as “emails”, “letters”, and “instant messages” to describe exactly what are seeking. I suggest that because NASA has different retention schedules and custodians for emails, letters, etc., depending sometimes upon the recipient or the creator. A requester desiring both emails and letters may need to agree to a higher fee than one just asking for email so the enumeration does materially affect processing.

At this time, again based solely upon precedent and guidelines, the criteria to grant a fee waiver is not satisfied. You may provide additional info and we can reconsider that determination, or you may appeal that action.

Respectfully,

Robert