Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION BERYL A. HOWELL, District Judge. The plaintiff, National Security Counselors (“NSC”), brings three related actions against six federal intelligence and defense agencies, claiming numerous violations of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the FOIA, the APA, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The gravamen of the plaintiffs claims is that these intelligence and defense agencies — principally the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) — have improperly handled the plaintiffs requests for a variety of information under the FOIA. Although this allegedly improper agency behavior relates to a number of specific FOIA requests made to the defendants, it has manifested more broadly in a series of what the plaintiff alleges to be policies, practices, or standard operating procedures (“SOPs”) of the CIA that constitute ongoing violations of the FOIA or the APA. In essence, the plaintiff alleges a series of policies or practices by the CIA that have endeavored systematically to extinguish FOIA requests at their inception, before the agency’s duty to search or make withholding decisions are triggered and before the agency must provide administrative remedies. In their totality, the allegations in these related actions paint a picture of the CIA’s desire to minimize the substance of its internal, administrative consideration of FOIA requests by crafting mechanisms that limit FOIA requesters’ access to such consideration, which in turn has tested the mettle, commitment, and resources of requesters like the plaintiff. The primary question presented by the CIA’s motions to dismiss the policy-or-practice claims in all three actions is whether such mechanisms are permitted by the FOIA. I. BACKGROUND The plaintiff in these related actions is a not-for-profit organization located in Arlington, Virginia, which was chartered in July 2009 by an attorney named Kelly McClanahan. According to its website, NSC performs four primary functions: (1) “to lawfully acquire from the government material related to national security matters and distribute it to the public”; (2) “to use this material in the creation of original publications discussing the respective subjects”; (3) “to advocate for intelligent reform in the national security and information and privacy arenas”; and (4) “to provide a low-cost alternative to certain deserving clients involved in security law or information and privacy law-related proceedings.” See Nat’l Sec. Counselors, http://nationalsecuritylaw.org/ (last visited Oct. 17, 2012). To achieve these functions, the plaintiff frequently requests information under the FOIA from government agencies in the defense and intelligence sectors. The instant actions involve challenges to both specific denials of records as well as overarching policies and practices of the CIA that are alleged to violate the FOIA. The CIA’s motions to dismiss currently pending before the Court, however, deal almost exclusively with the overarching policies and practices alleged by the plaintiff. At issue are twelve separate alleged policies or practices of the CIA, which the plaintiff claims are contrary to the CIA’s duties under the FOIA. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that the CIA has policies or practices of: 1. Refusing to recognize assignments of rights in FOIA requests (“Assignment of Rights Policy”). See Compl. ¶¶ 19-22, NSC I. 2. Refusing to process requests for “aggregate data,” e.g., a database listing of FOIA requests by fee category (“Aggregate Data Policy”). See FAC ¶¶ 12-16, NSC II. 3. Refusing to allow requesters the right of administrative appeal when their FOIA requests are deemed improper (“Administrative Appeals Policy”). See FAC ¶¶ 27-31, NSC II. 4. Applying an overbroad definition of the “reasonably describes” requirement contained in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A) (“Reasonably Describe Policy”). See FAC ¶¶ 57-61, NSC II. 5. Failing to follow the requirement in 32 C.F.R. § 1900.12 that, if a FOIA request is deemed improper, the agency must “work with, and offer suggestions to, the potential requester in order to define a request properly” (“Work With Policy”). See FAC ¶¶ 72-77, NSC II. 6. Imposing the date of the CIA’s response letter to a requester as the cut-off date on all FOIA request searches (“CuNOff Date Policy”). See FAC ¶¶ 112-115, NSC II. 7. Applying a blanket exemption to all information pertaining to the CIA’s processing of FOIA and Privacy Act requests (“Blanket Processing Notes Exemption Policy”). See FAC ¶¶ 33-37, NSC III. 8. Applying a blanket exemption to all FOIA and Privacy Act reference materials (e.g., training handbooks, manuals, guidelines) (“Blanket Reference Material Exemption Policy”). See FAC ¶¶ 79-81, NSC III. 9. Categorically issuing domar responses to requests for information pertaining to FOIA and Mandatory Declassification Review requests referred to the CIA by other agencies (“domar Response Policy”). See FAC ¶¶ 94-98, NSC III. 10. Refusing to provide estimated dates of completion for FOIA requests (“Non-Provision of Completion Date Policy”). See FAC ¶¶ 100-107, NSC III. 11. Refusing to identify records withheld in their entirety during the administrative stage of FOIA processing (“Withheld Document Non-Identification Policy”). See FAC ¶¶ 118-122, NSC III. 12. Invoking FOIA exemptions on a document level without indicating which exemptions apply to particular redactions at the administrative stage of FOIA processing (“Document-Level Exemption Policy”). See FAC ¶¶ 128-133, NSC III. The Court will first discuss the factual allegations related to each of these purported policies or practices before discussing the legal issues presented by the CIA’s partial motions to dismiss. A. Assignment of Rights Policy The plaintiff complains that the CIA refuses to recognize the assignment of rights related to FOIA requests — an assignment necessitated in this particular case by Mr. McClanahan’s change in employment. Prior to chartering NSC, Mr. McClanahan served as the Director of FOIA Operations at another not-for-profit organization called the James Madison Project (“JMP”). According to the plaintiff, it shares with JMP “virtually all the same purposes and interests,” except that NSC represents clients and JMP does not. See Pl.’s 443 Opp’n at 25. Indeed, JMP’s stated mission is to “promote government accountability and the reduction of secrecy, as well as to educate the public on issues relating to intelligence and national security through means of research, advocacy and the dissemination of information.” See James Madison Project, http://www. jamesmadisonproject.org (last visited Oct. 17, 2012). On April 10, 2008, JMP submitted a FOIA request to the CIA for eleven articles originally published in the CIA in-house journal Studies in Intelligence. Compl. ¶ 6, NSC I. On May 14, 2008, the CIA acknowledged receipt of JMP’s request and notified JMP that no fees would be assessed for the request. Id. ¶ 7. On February 27, 2009, the CIA released ten of the articles requested by JMP. Four articles were released in full and six were released with redactions under FOIA Exemptions 1, 2, and 3. On April 13, 2009, JMP administratively appealed the CIA’s invocation of these exemptions. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. Several months after the administrative appeal of the withholding decisions was filed, on July 31, 2009, Mr. McClanahan left JMP to charter NSC and serve as its Executive Director. Id. ¶ 11. Because the request for the Studies in Intelligence articles were a “pet project[]” of Mr. McClanahan’s, see Pl.’s 443 Opp’n at 25, on October 7, 2009, JMP notified the CIA that it was assigning all rights, benefits and interests in that request to NSC, including the right to “pursue any administrative or legal methods at [NSC’s] disposal” relative to this request and also “surrendering any claims it may have” with respect to this request. Id. Ex. Q at 1, ECF No. 12-18; Compl. ¶ 12, NSC I. While the administrative appeal of the exemptions claimed on the Studies in Intelligence articles was pending, the plaintiff sent a letter to the CIA on May 25, 2010, requesting that the appeal be amended to include a challenge to a redaction in one of the articles since the agency had not claimed an exemption for this redaction, and the redaction had been omitted from the original appeal. Compl. ¶ 13, NSC I. Prior to sending this letter, the plaintiff had begun to suspect that the CIA was refusing to recognize JMP’s assignment of rights (the “Assignment”), and the plaintiff therefore requested assistance from the CIA’s Office of Government Information Services (“OGIS”) to clarify the CIA’s position on the Assignment. Id. ¶ 14. The OGIS responded to the plaintiff on June 8, 2010, after consulting with the CIA’s Office of General Counsel (“OGC”), informing the plaintiff that it was the CIA’s policy not to accept assignments of rights with regard to FOIA requests and suggesting that the plaintiff would need to file new FOIA requests for the same records in order to pursue them administratively. Id. ¶ 15. The plaintiff alleges in Count One of the Complaint in No. 11-443 that it has a legal right to the information in the Studies in Intelligence articles that it requested, by virtue of the Assignment, and it also challenges the CIA’s Assignment of Rights Policy in Count Two, alleging that the policy is in violation of the FOIA and the APA. Id. ¶¶ 17, 19, 22. As a result, the plaintiff seeks a full disclosure of the Studies in Intelligence articles originally requested by JMP, a declaration that the CIA’s policy of refusing to recognize assignments of rights violates the FOIA and/or the APA, and an injunction compelling the CIA to accept assignments of rights. Compl. at 7, NSC I. B. Aggregate Data Policy The plaintiff complains that the CIA denied five FOIA requests in 2010 for database records organized into specific categories as detailed in each request, and with respect to four of these requests the plaintiff claims that the CIA denied any administrative appeal rights. Specifically, on July 5, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the CIA seeking “a record that would indicate the ten individuals responsible for the most FOIA requests submitted (each) in Fiscal Years 2008, 2009, and 2010.” FAC ¶ 42, NSC II; Pl.’s 444 Opp’n Ex. A at 1, ECF No. 17-2. The CIA responded on July 22, 2010 that it was declining to process this request, stating: “We have completed a thorough review of your request and have determined that our record systems are not configured in a way that would allow us to perform a search reasonably calculated to lead to the responsive record without an unreasonable effort.” PL’s 444 Opp’n Ex. A at 4. The CIA’s response further stated: “The FOIA does not require federal agencies to perform research, create records or conduct unreasonable searches through a body of material to see if any of it is related to a particular request.” Id. The plaintiff did not appeal this determination, and it alleges that if it had submitted an administrative appeal, the CIA would have refused to accept it. FAC ¶44, NSC II. In Count Eight of the First Amended Complaint in No. 11-444, the plaintiff maintains that it has a legal right to this requested record and seeks the record’s disclosure. Id. ¶ 45. On August 8, 2010, the plaintiff submitted four FOIA requests to the CIA seeking “database listings of all FOIA requesters from Fiscal Years 2008-2010 according to the fee categories to which CIA assigned them.” Id. ¶ 6. In particular, each of these requests sought “a database listing of all the FOIA requesters from FY 2008 — present that you have classified as” either “news media,” “educational or scientific,” “commercial,” or “all other.” See PL’s 444 Opp’n Ex. B at 1, 4, 7, 10, ECF No. 17-3. On September 30, 2010, the CIA acknowledged receipt of these requests and assigned them tracking numbers but informed the plaintiff that it was declining to process the requests, stating that “[t]he FOIA does not require federal agencies to create a record, collect information, conduct research, or analyze data.” Id. at 14-17. The plaintiff attempted to administratively appeal these determinations, but the CIA responded on October 21, 2010 that “since we did not provide you with appeal rights, we cannot accept your appeals].” Id. at 18-21. In Count One of the First Amended Complaint in No. 11-444, the plaintiff maintains that it has a legal right to these requested records and seeks the records’ disclosure. See FAC ¶ 10, NSC II. In addition to these five specific denials of FOIA requests, the plaintiff also alleges that the “CIA’s refusal to process requests for aggregate data represents an ongoing policy, practice, or standard operating procedure (‘SOP’)” that violates the FOIA. Id. ¶¶ 12-13. The plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from this alleged Aggregate Data Policy in Counts Two, Three, and Four of the First Amended Complaint in No. 11-444 under the FOIA, the APA, and the Mandamus Act, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 13,16,18-20, 22-25. C. Reasonably Describe Policy Next, the plaintiff complains about two FOIA requests made in 2010 and 2011, respectively, that the CIA declined to process for failure to “reasonably describe” the records sought — a decision by the CIA that the plaintiff claims would also result in a denial of administrative appeal rights, although the plaintiff did not test that result by filing any administrative appeals. Specifically, on May 13, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the CIA seeking “a representative sample of [CIA] analytical reports and memoranda presenting psychological analyses or profiles of foreign government officials, terrorist leaders, international criminals, business figures, and other intelligence targets prepared by the Medical and Psychological Analysis Center (‘MPAC’) or its predecessor Office of Leadership Analysis (‘OLA’).” The request specified that a “representative sample” meant: (a) “[o]nly final official reports or memoranda,” (b) no more than twenty reports/memoranda from any given year, (c) “[flour reports/memoranda for each year ... for individuals in each category of intelligence target,” and (d) “Reasonable variety in the intelligence targets wherever possible.” Lutz Deck Ex. M at 1-2. The CIA responded to this request on June 23, 2010, stating that it could not accept the request in its current form because it had not “reasonably describe[d]” the records sought, citing the “breadth and lack of specificity” of the request and “the way in which [the CIA’s] records systems are configured.” Id. Ex. N at 1, ECF No. 20-3. The CIA’s response further encouraged the plaintiff “to refine the scope of your request (such as including a narrower time frame for, and more specific descriptions of, the information you seek) to enable us to conduct a reasonable search for responsive information.” Id. Once again, the plaintiff did not appeal this determination, and it alleges that if it had submitted an administrative appeal, the CIA would have refused to accept it. FAC ¶ 49, NSC II. In Count Nine of the First Amended Complaint in No. 11-444, the plaintiff maintains that it has a legal right to this requested record and seeks the record’s disclosure. Id. ¶ 50. Relatedly, on February 16, 2011, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the CIA seeking “all [CIA] records pertaining to the IBM supercomputer named ‘Watson.’ ” Lutz Deck Ex. O at 1, ECF No. 20-3. The CIA’s response to this request on March 2, 2011 was substantially identical to its response to the plaintiffs May 13, 2010 FOIA request, stating that it could not accept the request in its current form because it had not “reasonably describe[d]” the records sought, citing the “breadth and lack of specificity” of the request and “the way in which [the CIA’s] records systems are configured.” Id. Ex. P at 1, ECF No. 20-3. The CIA’s response further encouraged the plaintiff “to refine the scope of your request (such as contracts, if they exist, which would explain records pertaining to Watson’) to enable us to conduct a reasonable search for responsive information.” Id. Yet again, the plaintiff did not appeal this determination, and it alleges that if it had submitted an administrative appeal, the CIA would have refused to accept it. FAC ¶ 54, NSC II. In Count Ten of the First Amended Complaint in No. 11-444, the plaintiff maintains that it has a legal right to these requested records and seeks the records’ disclosure. Id. ¶ 55. . In addition to these two specific denials of FOIA requests, the plaintiff has submitted forty-four other denials by the CIA that rely on the requester’s failure to “reasonably describe” the records sought as a basis for declining to process the requests. Pl.’s 444 Opp’n Ex. E at 1-45, 47-51, 53-55. The plaintiff alleges that these refusals to process requests that do not “reasonably describe” records sought is related to the fact that “[i]n a majority of these cases, CIA has cited the configuration of its records systems as a disqualifying factor.” FAC ¶ 58, NSC II. These forty-four other denials span nearly four years, from August 1, 2007 to June 27, 2011, and they are in reference to FOIA requests made by the plaintiff as well as a number of other, non-party FOIA requesters, including JMP, MuckRock, Gawker Media, and the National Security Archive. Pl.’s 444 Opp’n Ex. E at 1-45, 47-51, 53-55. The plaintiff alleges that, by relying upon “the configuration of its records systems” in concluding that FOIA requests fail to “reasonably describe” records sought, the CIA’s “application of FOIA’s ‘reasonably describe’ requirement is significantly and consistently broader than is allowed by FOIA,” which the plaintiff claims is a policy or practice of the CIA that violates the FOIA. FAC ¶¶ 58-59, NSC II. The plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from this alleged Reasonably Describe Policy in Counts Eleven, Twelve, and Thirteen of the First Amended Complaint in No. 11-444 under the FOIA, the APA, and the Mandamus Act, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 59, 61, 63-65, 67-70. D. Administrative Appeals Policy and Work With Policy As discussed above, when the plaintiff attempted to administratively appeal the CIA’s refusal to process the plaintiffs August 8, 2010 FOIA requests seeking “database listings of all FOIA requesters from Fiscal Years 2008-2010 according to the fee categories to which CIA assigned them,” the CIA refused to accept the plaintiffs administrative appeal. FAC ¶ 6, NSC II; see also Pl.’s 444 Opp’n Ex. B at 18-21. According to the plaintiff, this was not an isolated incident. The plaintiff has also submitted examples of similar refusals to allow administrative appeals by the CIA in response to three other FOIA requests submitted by two non-party FOIA requesters. See id. Ex C at 2; id. Ex. D. From these examples, the plaintiff alleges that, whenever the CIA refuses to process a FOIA request that it deems “improper” (e.g., because it does not “reasonably describe” requested records or it seeks “aggregate data”), the CIA has a policy or practice of refusing to accept administrative appeals from those decisions. See FAC ¶¶ 28-29, NSC II. The plaintiff claims that this Administrative Appeals Policy violates the FOIA, and it seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from the alleged policy in Counts Five, Six, and Seven of the First Amended Complaint in No. 11-444 under the FOIA, the APA, and the Mandamus Act, respectively. FAC ¶¶ 29, 31, 33-35, 37-40, NSC II. Similarly, the plaintiff alleges that in the “numerous instances in which CIA has refused to process a FOIA request it deemed improper,” the CIA has endeavored to “ ‘work with, and offer suggestions to, the potential requester’ ” in “virtually none of those circumstances.” Id. ¶ 74 (quoting 32 C.F.R. § 1900.12(c)). In support of this claim, the plaintiff cites, a series of CIA responses to “improper” FOIA requests that either “contained only six formulaic suggestions” or “did not contain any suggestions at all.” See Pl.’s 444 Opp’n Ex. E at 1, 3-51, 53-55. The plaintiff claims that this behavior constitutes a policy or practice that violates the CIA’s own FOIA regulation, 32 C.F.R. § 1900.12(c), which states: “Communications which do not meet the[] requirements [of reasonably describing the records sought and not requiring an unreasonable search] will be considered an expression of interest and the Agency will work with, and offer suggestions to, the potential requester in order to define a request properly.” See FAC ¶¶ 73-75. The plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from this alleged Work With Policy in Counts Fourteen, Fifteen, and Sixteen of the First Amended Complaint in No. 11-444 under the FOIA, the APA, and the Mandamus Act, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 75, 77, 79-81, 83-86. E. Cut-Off Date Policy The plaintiff alleges that “[i]n every response letter [it] has received from CIA, CIA has imposed an arbitrary cut-off date on the search of the date of the response letter, regardless of the nature of the request or how long the search is expected to take.” Id. ¶ 112. Although the plaintiff alleges that the CIA imposes this “arbitrary cut-off date” in response to every FOIA request it has ever made to the CIA, the plaintiff has also submitted ten examples of such responses to serve as a “representative sample,” all of which were sent to the plaintiff after this action was commenced. PL’s 444 Opp’n at 14-15; id. Ex. G. The plaintiff alleges that applying an “arbitrary ‘date of response’ cut-off date regardless of the nature of the request or the anticipated length of the search” is a policy or practice of the CIA that violates the FOIA, and the plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from this alleged Cut-Off Date Policy in Count Twenty-One of the First Amended Complaint in No. 11-444 under the FOIA. FAC ¶¶ 113,115, NSC II. F. Withheld Document Non-Identifícation Policy and Document-Level Exemption Policy Next, the plaintiff alleges two policies or practices of the CIA that relate to the CIA’s processing of FOIA requests at the administrative level. First, the plaintiff claims that “[i]n every case in which CIA has withheld records in their entirety in response to [one of the plaintiffs] FOIA requests], ... CIA has consistently refused to identify any of the records withheld in their entirety.” FAC ¶ 118, NSC III. The plaintiff alleges that this persistent “refusfal] to identify withheld records in the administrative stage” is a policy or practice of the CIA, citing a publicly available CIA training outline created in 2001, which states, “at initial and at appeal stage, no listing of documents ... is required,” and the plaintiff claims that this Withheld Document Non-Identification Policy violates the FOIA. Id. ¶¶ 118-20. The plaintiff therefore seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from this alleged policy in Counts Eighteen and Nineteen, of the First Amended Complaint in No. 11-445 under the FOIA and the APA, respectively. See id. ¶¶ 120,122,124-26. The plaintiff also alleges that, “[i]n the majority of cases in which CIA has withheld records in their entirety in response to [one of the plaintiffs] FOIA requests], ... CIA has consistently invoked exemptions in the alternative,” and that “[i]n every case in which CIA has redacted information from records released in response to [one of the plaintiffs] FOIA requests], ... CIA has consistently invoked exemptions on a document-level without indicating which exemptions applied to which particular redactions.” Id. ¶¶ 128-29. The plaintiff further alleges that this activity represents an ongoing policy or practice of the CIA, citing the same training manual it cited in challenging the alleged Withheld Document Non-Identification Policy, which also states that “at the initial and at appeal stage, no ... putting specific exemptions next to redactions, is required,” and the plaintiff claims that this alleged Document-Level Exemption Policy violates the FOIA. Id. ¶¶ 119, 130-31. The plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from this alleged policy in Counts Twenty and Twenty-One of the First Amended Complaint in No. 11-445 under the FOIA and the APA, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 133,135-37. G. Blanket Processing Notes Exemption Policy and Blanket Reference Material Exemption Policy The plaintiff has, through numerous separate FOIA requests, sought two types of records integral to the processing of FOIA requests: namely, notes prepared and reference materials used by personnel actually processing the requests, but the plaintiff claims that the CIA has categorically declined to disclose either type of record. Specifically, on December 1, 2009, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the CIA seeking “copies of all CIA records ‘referencing FOIA and Privacy Act requests submitted by [ten listed parties] that contain remarks, comments, notes, explanations, etc. made by CIA personnel or contractors about the processing of these requests (and appeals, if appropriate), the invocation of exemptions, or related matters.’ ” FAC ¶ 11, NSC III. This information was to include “analysts’ notes made during the processing of the requests, any standard worksheets completed by the analysts, any justifications for exemption invocations,” as well as “any correspondence referencing the requests.” Id. The plaintiff refers to this kind of request generally as a “Processing Notes request,” and the plaintiff alleges that it has also submitted seventeen other Processing Notes requests to the CIA, and in thirteen of those requests the CIA identified responsive records. Id. ¶¶ 11, 33. The plaintiff also claims that, in response to twelve of those thirteen FOIA requests involving responsive records, the CIA “has withheld everything from ... release except for correspondence with the requester.” Id. ¶ 33. Relatedly, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request on February 6, 2010 for “copies of ‘all current training handbooks, manuals, guidelines, checklists, worksheets, and similar documents provided to [CIA] FOIA and Privacy Act analysts.’ ” Id. ¶ 56. The plaintiff refers to this kind of request generally as a “Reference Materials request,” and it claims that, in response to FOIA requests seeking such reference materials, the CIA “applies] a blanket exemption” to all such reference materials. Id. ¶ 79. The plaintiff claims that these patterns of activity by the CIA with respect to FOIA processing notes and reference materials constitute two policies or practices that violate the FOIA by applying an improper blanket exemption to all such materials, thereby preventing their disclosure. Id. ¶¶ 33, 35, 79. As a result, the plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from the alleged Blanket Processing Notes Exemption Policy and Blanket Reference Material Exemption Policy in Counts Four and Eleven of the First Amended Complaint in No. 1H45, respectively, under the FOIA. Id. ¶ 37, 81. H. Glomar Response Policy The plaintiff has submitted nine FOIA requests to the CIA, two of which are at issue in this litigation, seeking records “pertaining to FOIA or Mandatory Declassification Review (‘MDR’) requests” that had been referred to the CIA by other government agencies. Id. ¶ 94. Based on the two examples of such requests provided by the plaintiff, these requests were similar to a Processing Notes request and sought the same types of information as such requests, except that they sought processing notes from particular FOIA requests, rather than generally seeking all CIA processing notes related to particular requesters. See id. ¶¶ 83, 89. The plaintiff alleges that, in response to these processing notes requests, the CIA “issued a Glomar response to all but one of these requests,” and it further alleges that this activity by the CIA constitutes an agency policy or practice. Id. ¶ 94. A Glomar response is “an exception to the general rule that agencies must acknowledge the existence of information responsive to a FOIA request and provide specific, non-conclusory justifications for withholding that information.” Roth v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 642 F.3d 1161, 1178 (D.C.Cir.2011). Thus, a Glomar response allows an agency to respond to a FOIA request by neither confirming nor denying the existence of any records responsive to the request, on the grounds that “confirming or denying the existence of records would itself ‘cause harm cognizable under a[ ] FOIA exception.’ ” Id. (quoting Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370, 374 (D.C.Cir.2007)). The plaintiff alleges that “[t]he fact that any given FOIA or MDR request is referred to CIA by another government agency is not classified,” and therefore the plaintiff claims that the CIA’s alleged policy or practice of “authorizing] a Glomar response to any request for information pertaining to FOIA and MDR requests referred to an agency” is an ongoing violatión of the FOIA. Id. ¶ 95-96. The plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from this alleged Glomar Response Policy in Count Fourteen of the First Amended Complaint in No. 11-445 under the FOIA. Id. ¶ 98. I. Non-Provision of Completion Date Policy Finally, the plaintiff alleges that, in conjunction with pending FOIA requests with the CIA, the plaintiff “asked CIA numerous times in 2009-2010 for estimated dates of completion for its pending FOIA requests” pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(7)(B). Id. ¶ 101. That portion of the FOIA provides that “[ejach agency shall ... provide! ] information about the status of a request to the person making the request,” including “an estimated date of on which the agency will complete action on the request.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(7)(B). The plaintiff claims that until November 2010, the CIA “refused to provide [the plaintiff] with estimated dates of completion.” FAC ¶ 101, NSC III. On November 17, 2010, however, the plaintiff alleges that a representative of the CIA informed the plaintiff “that CIA’s new policy was to inform requesters that the estimated date of completion for any given request is two years from CIA’s date of receipt.” Id. That same day, the plaintiff alleges, non-party JMP requested estimated dates of completion from the CIA for three pending FOIA requests that were more than two years old, specifically invoking 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(7)(B). Id. ¶ 102. Even so, the plaintiff alleges that on November 24, 2010, the CIA responded to JMP’s request but “refused to provide the requested estimated dates of completion.” Id. The plaintiff also alleges that the CIA similarly refused to provide estimated dates of completion for pending FOIA requests to a non-party named Michael Ravnitzky, who requested such dates on November 28, 2010. Id. ¶ 103. As a result of this pattern of behavior, the plaintiff claims that the CIA’s refusal to provide estimated dates of completion, in compliance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(7)(B), represents an ongoing policy or practice of the CIA that violates the FOIA. Id. ¶¶ 104-05. The plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from this alleged Non-Provision of Completion Date Policy in Counts Fifteen, Sixteen, and Seventeen of the First Amended Complaint in No. 11-445 under the FOIA, the APA, and the Mandamus Act, respectively. See id. ¶¶ 105,107,109-11,113-16. The plaintiff filed the Complaints in each of these three actions on February 28, 2011, and the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in Nos. 11-444 and 11-445 on March 21, 2011. Pending before the Court are the CIA’s partial motions to dismiss in all three actions. The motions have been brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim as well as Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the CIA’s Partial Motion to Dismiss in No. 11-443, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the CIA’s Partial Motion to Dismiss in No. 11-444, and the Court will grant in part and deny in part the defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss in No. 11-445. II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW A. Motions to Dismiss In its partial motions to dismiss, the CIA invokes the legal standards for dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). When faced with a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), a court has “an affirmative obligation to consider whether the constitutional and statutory authority exist” for it to hear the case. James Madison Ltd. v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085, 1092 (D.C.Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). For this reason, “the [pjlaintiffs factual allegations in the complaint ... will bear closer scrutiny in resolving a 12(b)(1) motion than in resolving a 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim.” Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F.Supp.2d 9, 13-14 (D.D.C.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). When the purported lack of jurisdiction stems from a lack of standing, however, the court “must assume that [the plaintiff] states a valid legal claim.” Info. Handling Servs., Inc. v. Def. Automated Printing Servs., 338 F.3d 1024, 1029 (D.C.Cir.2003). The proponent of jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that it exists, Khadr v. United States, 529 F.3d 1112, 1115 (D.C.Cir.2008), and while “the district court may consider materials outside the pleadings,” it must “still accept all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true.” Jerome Stevens Pharm., Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249, 1253 (D.C.Cir.2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff need only plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” and to “nudge[] [his or her] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). “[A] complaint [does not] suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion^]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955). Instead, the complaint must plead facts that are more than “ ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability”; “the plaintiff [must] plead[] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955); accord Rudder v. Williams, 666 F.3d 790, 794 (D.C.Cir.2012). The Court “must assume all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact) ... [and] must give the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences derived from the facts alleged.” Aktieselskabet AF 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc., 525 F.3d 8, 17 (D.C.Cir.2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). B. FOIA Generally Congress enacted the FOIA to promote transparency across the government. See 5 U.S.C. § 552; Quick v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Nat’l Inst. of Standards & Tech., 775 F.Supp.2d 174, 179-80 (D.D.C.2011) (citing Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 88 (D.C.Cir.1984)). The Supreme Court has explained that FOIA is “a means for citizens to know “what their Government is up to.’ This phrase should not be dismissed as a convenient formalism. It defines a structural necessity in a real democracy.” Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 171-72, 124 S.Ct. 1570, 158 L.Ed.2d 319 (2004) (citations omitted). “The basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.” NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242, 98 S.Ct. 2311, 57 L.Ed.2d 159 (1978). The strong interest in transparency must be tempered, however, by the “ ‘legitimate governmental and private interests [that] could be harmed by release of certain types of information.’ ” United Techs. Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 601 F.3d 557, 559 (D.C.Cir.2010) (quoting Critical Mass Energy Project v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 975 F.2d 871, 872 (D.C.Cir.1992)). Accordingly, Congress included nine exemptions permitting agencies to withhold information from FOIA disclosure. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). “These exemptions are explicitly made exclusive, and must be narrowly construed.” Milner v. Dep’t of the Navy, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1259, 1262, 179 L.Ed.2d 268 (2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (citing FBI v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615, 630, 102 S.Ct. 2054, 72 L.Ed.2d 376 (1982)); see also Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 598 F.3d 865, 869 (D.C.Cir.2010). The D.C. Circuit has also recognized that, separate from claims seeking relief for specific requests made under the FOIA, requesting parties may also assert a “claim that an agency policy or practice will impair the party’s lawful access to information in the future.” Payne Enters., Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486, 491 (D.C.Cir.1988); accord Newport Aeronautical Sales v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 684 F.3d 160, 164 (D.C.Cir.2012). The Court in Payne held that a policy-or-practice claim is viable “[s]o long as an agency’s refusal to supply information evidences a policy or practice of delayed disclosure or some other failure to abide by the terms of the FOIA, and not merely isolated mistakes by agency officials.” Payne, 837 F.2d at 491. To state a claim for relief under the doctrine articulated in Payne, a plaintiff must plausibly demonstrate that: (1) the agency in question has adopted, endorsed, or implemented a policy or practice that constitutes an ongoing “failure to abide by the terms of the FOIA”; and (2) the plaintiff will “suffer ‘continuing injury due to this practice.’” See id. (quoting Better Gov’t Ass’n v. Dep’t of State, 780 F.2d 86, 91 (D.C.Cir.1986)). III. DISCUSSION When a federal court is faced with both a challenge to its Article III jurisdiction to hear a claim as well as a challenge to the merits of that claim, the court must address the jurisdictional question before addressing any question of the merits. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 101, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998); accord Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Columbia, 486 F.3d 1342, 1346 (D.C.Cir.2007) (“ ‘Article III jurisdiction is always an antecedent question’ to be answered prior to any merits inquiry.” (quoting Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 101, 118 S.Ct. 1003)). Therefore, the Court will first address the CIA’s challenges to the plaintiffs’ standing to bring certain claims. A. Standing Article III of the United States Constitution limits the federal judicial power to the resolution of “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const, art. Ill § 2; see also Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1436, 1441-42, 179 L.Ed.2d 523 (2011) (explaining case-or-controversy requirement). Several doctrines have “grown up to elaborate” the case-or-controversy requirement, the “most important” of which is standing. See Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984). As the Supreme Court has explained, “the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact,” i.e., “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Second, there must be “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of,” i.e., the injury alleged must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant. Id. Finally, it must be likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Id. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130. Moreover, when a plaintiff seeks prospective declaratory or injunctive relief, allegations of past harms are insufficient. See, e.g., Dearth v. Holder, 641 F.3d 499, 501 (D.C.Cir.2011). Rather, when declaratory or injunctive relief is sought, a plaintiff “must show he is suffering an ongoing injury or faces an immediate threat of [future] injury.” Id. (citing City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983)). In these related actions, the CIA raises two issues regarding the plaintiffs standing to sue. The first issue relates only to the claims brought in No. 11-443 regarding the Assignment of Rights Policy. The CIA challenges the plaintiffs standing to bring both the policy-or-practice claim itself, as well as the plaintiffs related claim in Count One of No. 11-443, in which it asks the Court to order the CIA to process the FOIA request that was assigned to it by JMP. The CIA argues that “[b]ecause NSC does not have any enforceable rights or interests in the FOIA requests it references in [its policy-or-practice claim], it cannot establish that the CIA’s alleged policy has harmed or will harm ‘a legally protected, concrete and particularized interest.’ ” Def.’s 443 Mem. at 7 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130). The CIA frames this as a matter of Article III standing, see id., but the premise of the CIA’s argument hinges entirely on the merits of the plaintiffs claims that the Assignment is valid and enforceable and that, as a result, the plaintiff has a statutory right, i.e., a “legally protected and particularized” right, to the information sought in the assigned FOIA request. The plaintiffs alleged lack of injury-in-fact stems directly and exclusively from the fact that its name did not appear on the assigned FOIA request when that request was filed, and therefore the CIA’s argument presents a question of statutory, rather than Article III, standing. This means that the Court may resolve both the merits and jurisdictional issues of this claim at the outset. See, e.g., Chalabi v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, 543 F.3d 725, 728 (D.C.Cir.2008) (holding that “Steel Co.’s bar on hypothetical jurisdiction poses no obstacle” to resolving issues with “both threshold and merits characteristics” when the threshold issues relate to statutory standing). It follows necessarily that if the Assignment is valid and enforceable, the plaintiff has standing to bring the claims articulated in No. 11-443. 1. Assignment of Rights to FOIA Requests “Anyone whose request for specific information has been denied has standing to bring an action [under the FOIA].” Zivotofsky ex rel. Ari Z. v. Sec’y of State, 444 F.3d 614, 617 (D.C.Cir.2006). “The requester is injured-in-fact for standing purposes because he did not get what the statute entitled him to receive.” Id. at 617-18. The FOIA provides that “each agency, upon any request for records” that is sufficiently specific and made in accordance with published procedures for submitting such requests, “shall make the records promptly available to any person.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). An agency’s duties under the FOIA are triggered by a properly. framed request for information, and the agency’s obligations flowing from that request are with respect to “the requester” of the information. See id. § 552(a)(6)(A)© (requiring agency to notify “the person making [the] request” whether the agency will comply with the request and “the right of such person to appeal”). The first question raised by this case is whether the right to information, arising from the denial of a person’s request for such information, is transferrable to another person after the original request has been made but before administrative remedies have been exhausted. Courts have typically not allowed anyone other than the person originally requesting information under the FOIA to challenge an agency’s action in responding to the request. See McDonnell v. United States, 4 F.3d 1227, 1238-39 (3d Cir.1993) (“We think a person whose name does not appear on a request for records .... has no right to receive either the documents, or notice of an agency decision to withhold the documents.” (citations omitted)); Feinman v. FBI, 680 F.Supp.2d 169, 173 (D.D.C.2010) (“[A] plaintiff whose name does not appear on a FOIA request lacks standing to challenge its denial ....”); see also SAE Prods., Inc. v. FBI, 589 F.Supp.2d 76, 80 (D.D.C.2008) (corporate agent requesting information “must adequately identify that he or she is making the FOIA request on behalf of the corporation in order for the corporation itself to have standing to pursue a FOIA action”); Three Forks Ranch Corp. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 358 F.Supp.2d 1, 3 (D.D.C.2005) (“[A]n attorney must adequately identify that he is making the FOIA request for his client in order for the client to have standing to pursue a FOIA action.”). This Circuit has, however, held that when a FOIA requester dies during the pendency of his request, the rights to pursue the FOIA request may survive and pass to the legal representative of the requester’s estate. See Sinito v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 176 F.3d 512, 516-17 (D.C.Cir.1999) (allowing son of deceased FOIA requester to be substituted as the plaintiff in FOIA litigation if the lower court determined that he was his father’s legal representative). Thus, although the D.C. Circuit clearly approved of the transferability of interests in FOIA requests under certain limited circumstances in Sinito, the only case in this Circuit thus far to address whether FOIA requests may be assigned to a non-requesting party after the request has been made, Feinman v. FBI, held that such assignments are not allowed. Closer examination of these two cases is warranted both to reconcile their holdings and to ascertain guidance on the question before the Court. a) Sinito and Feinman The D.C. Circuit’s decision in Sinito established a limited right to transfer interests in FOIA requests. That case involved a FOIA request made by a prisoner, seeking information about the criminal investigation that had resulted in his incarceration. See Sinito, 176 F.3d at 513. The original requester had exhausted his administrative remedies and filed suit in federal court, but he died in prison before his protracted litigation had been resolved. Id. The late prisoner’s counsel moved to substitute the prisoner’s son as the plaintiff under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25, but the district court denied the motion. Id. The D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that a FOIA action can survive a requester’s death so long as the party substituting for the deceased requester “qualifies under Rule 25(a) as a legal representative eligible to continue the action.” Id. In so holding, the Circuit compared the structure and purpose of the FOIA with other claims that survive death, such as claims under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (“LMRDA”), see Mallick v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 814 F.2d 674, 677 (D.C.Cir.1987), or Bivens actions, see Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 24-25, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980). See Sinito, 176 F.3d at 513-15. The Court also noted that the strong apparent identity of interests between the proposed substitute party and the original requestor was strong, id. at 515 (“[W]e are dealing here not with a vast pool of potential FOIA applicants, any of whom might seek to take [the original requester’s] place in the litigation.”), and that the original requester had “invested time, and in all likelihood money, in the action,” and therefore he “ha[d] a stake in the legal action which transcended] that of ‘any person’ who might seek the FOIA document,” id. Finally, the Court notably drew a favorable comparison between FOIA actions and “action[s] sounding in property rights ... seeking money rather than information,” in which “there would be little doubt” that the action would pass to the claimant’s estate. Id. The Court concluded that, even though a FOIA request seeks information rather than money, information “in many cases has equal value with money or tangible property, and there is no reason, absent statutory preclusion, why it should not similarly survive.” Id. The limits of a FOIA request’s transferability was once again addressed in Feinman, which involved a FOIA claim brought by a journalist (Feinman) who claimed that she had been assigned the rights to the request in question by the original requester (Beirne) who was a non-party to the lawsuit. Feinman, 680 F.Supp.2d at 170-71. The FBI had denied Beirne’s request without any right of appeal because the request sought information about a suspected terrorist, but no proof of the suspected terrorist’s death or a signed privacy waiver had been submitted with the request. Id. at 171. Several months later, Feinman notified the FBI that Beirne had “assigned her rights and interests in the FOIA request to Feinman.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Feinman then sued the FBI, claiming that she had a “legal right under FOIA ‘to obtain the information she seeks.’ ” Id. The FBI moved to dismiss on standing grounds because Feinman’s “name ‘did not appear on the original request.’ ” Id. Although the FBI based its arguments for dismissal solely on Feinman’s lack of statutory standing, the court held that “strong policy concerns counseled] against permitting assignments” of FOIA requests. Id. at 175. In particular, the court identified two principal policy considerations that counseled against assignments. First, the court noted that the identity of a FOIA requester is highly relevant in determining whether the requester is required to pay fees, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A), and whether an agency discloses certain privileged documents to “ ‘first-party’ requesters who are the very persons protected by the privilege.” Feinman, 680 F.Supp.2d at 175. Thus, the court reasoned, allowing assignment of FOIA requests would potentially allow assignees to “share” (ie., free-ride upon) an original requester’s favorable fee status and would force FOIA administrators to “risk litigation if they subsequently determined that privacy or similar exemptions should be invoked against the third-party assignee.” Id. Second, the court stated that allowing assignments of FOIA requests would “multiply opportunities for mistake and mischief’ because allowing assignments would potentially allow an individual to “thwart an adversary’s search for information by claiming falsely to have been assigned a previous requester’s FOIA rights,” and would concomitantly place an undue burden on FOIA administrators to “verify the validity of an assignment by determining whether it complies with local law and reflects the original requester’s actual intent.” Id. at 175-76. The Feinman court also discussed the Sinito case at length, distinguishing it on two grounds. The court first noted that, unlike the deceased original requester in Sinito, the original requester in Feinman (Beirne) “did not invest any time, money, or other effort into pursuing this litigation” and thus never acquired a stake in the litigation “that might counsel against letting her investment of litigation resources go to waste.” Id. at 174. The court also noted that, unlike Sinito, “there is no allegation that [Beirne] was incapable of protecting her rights by suing on her own behalf, or that the relationship between Beirne and Feinman is such that Feinman would protect Beime’s interests if their interests diverge.” Id. at 175. Ultimately, the Feinman court drew a distinction between a situation “where the plaintiff claims to act on behalf of the original requester,” as was the case in Sinito, as opposed to “act[ing] in her own right.” Id. b) The Applicability of Feinman Despite the thoughtful consideration of this issue by the court in Feinman, neither the policy considerations discussed in Feinman nor the grounds it cited for distinguishing the holding in Sinito are sufficient to deny the validity of the plaintiffs assignment in this case. Starting with the Feinman court’s discussion of Sinito, there are a number of major differences between Feinman and the instant case that distinguish Feinman’s analysis of Sinito. First and foremost, this case involves an assignment between two nonprofit organizations, rather than an assignment between individuals. Recognizing that human beings, rather than corporate entities, perform the actual work on FOIA requests, an organizational interest in a FOIA request may often be attached to the work of a single employee or small group of employees who, in turn, may choose to perform their work for more than one organizational principal while a request is pending. Thus, as the plaintiff points out, not honoring the assignability of FOIA requests between organizations, when the sole reason for the assignment is to keep a request with the person or persons who have assumed stewardship of that request, could present a large swath of professional FOIA requesters with a Morton’s fork: either forfeit the freedom to transfer organizations or forfeit the right to pursue a pending request for information under the FOIA. The former option would needlessly and severely restrict employees’ freedom to change organizations, while the latter option would undermine the essential purpose of the FOIA. Relatedly, this case involves two organizations that employed the same individual (Mr. McClanahan) who had primary responsibility for filing and administratively pursuing the request at issue. By virtue of the extensive time and effort Mr. McClanahan has already invested in this request, see PL’s 443 Opp’n at 26, it is clear that the plaintiff, through the efforts of its agent, has acquired a stake in the litigation, unlike the plaintiff in Feinman. Finally, unlike the parties in Feinman who alleged no relationship to each other whatsoever, the common bonds connecting JMP and NSC — the two organizations share the same Deputy Executive Director (Bradley Moss), and the Executive Director of JMP (Mark Zaid) also serves on the plaintiffs Board of Advisors, see PL’s 443 Opp’n at 24 — establishes that their relationship “is such that [NSC] would protect [JMP’s] interests if their interests diverge.” See Feinman, 680 F.Supp.2d at 175. More fundamentally, the Court believes that Feinman did not account fully for the D.C. Circuit’s acknowledgement in Sinito that a claim for information and a claim for money or tangible property are substantially similar in many cases. See Sinito, 176 F.3d at 515. The logical result of the Circuit’s reasoning in Sinito is that courts should treat FOIA claims like claims to tangible property unless doing so would contravene public policy' or undermine the “institutional interests” of the judiciary in regulating which parties have standing to sue. See id. Hence, the Court now turns to the policy considerations raised in Feinman to determine whether assignability of FOIA requests would be appropriate in this case. The Court certainly agrees with Feinman that the identity of a FOIA requester is relevant to certain aspects of the processing of the request, such as the assessment of fees and the application of exemptions for privilege or privacy concerns. Nevertheless, the Court does not agree that these concerns warrant a blanket prohibition against the assignment of FOIA requests. Federal agencies are more than capable of developing efficient procedures to ensure that assignees do not free-ride on an original requestor’s fee status or improperly seek private or privileged information. For example, agencies could easily require assignees, as a matter of standard procedure, to submit any information necessary for the agency to update the aspects of an assigned request that turn on a requester’s identity. If an agency were to determine from this information that an assignee was not entitled to a fee waiver that had applied to the original requester or that an assignee did not enjoy “first party” access to the original requester’s private or privileged information, the agency could simply adjust its disposition of the request accordingly. For similar reasons, the Court believes that the potential for an increase in “opportunities for mistake and mischief’ resulting from the recognition of assignment rights is minimal. The Feinman court may have been correct in noting that, if FOIA administrators were to take an individual’s claim to an assignment of rights “at face value,” any stranger could step in to exclude an original requester from the FOIA process against her will. See Feinman, 680 F.Supp.2d at 175-76. Even so, nothing would require an agency to take such claims “at face value.” On the contrary, FOIA administrators should require proper documentation of an assignment for it to be recognized — most likely a notarized statement from the original requester that specifically identifies the assignee and the rights assigned. Cf. 31 U.S.C. § 3727(b) (laying out requirements for assignment of money claims against the United States government). The Feinman court was nevertheless concerned that this validation process would constitute an “unreasonable” burden on busy FOIA administrators and that such a burden would be “greater than the minimal burden on any given assignee to make her own FOIA request.” Feinman, 680 F.Supp.2d at 176. That balancing of the equities, however, does not fully account for the realities of FOIA litigation and the central animating purposes of the FOIA. The burden imposed by requiring an assignee to file a new request and wait at the back of the FOIA line is not “minimal” in most cases. Although filing a new FOIA request may often involve a small amount of effort or resources, it exacts a temporal cost on FOIA requesters that should not be discounted, considering that the FOIA was intended to promote not merely disclosure, but timely disclosure. See H.R.Rep. No. 93-876, at 6 (1974), 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6267, 6271 (“[I]nformation is often useful only if it is timely.”); Payne, 837 F.2d at 494 (“[S]tale information is of little value yet more costly than fresh information ought to be.”). To cite a relevant example, although the CIA takes an average of 143 days to respond to “complex” FOIA requests in which information is granted, it can sometimes take the better part of a decade, and in this particular case, over four and a half years have passed since the date JMP filed the original FOIA request. Additionally, the burden imposed on FOIA administrators from processing assigned requests is unlikely to become “unreasonable,” and may in fact be more efficient than the alternative. See, e.g., Sinito, 176 F.3d at 517 (“[I]t would seem to us more expeditious from the government’s point of view to allow the [FOIA] appeal to be pursued on the record already made than to begin the process all over again with a new requestor.”). Agencies can and should shift the vast majority of any burden to the assignees themselves, requiring them to submit whatever documentation the agency deems sufficient to validate an assignment, as discussed above. Additionally, the plaintiffs representations indicate that federal agencies are already recognizing FOIA assignments. In particular, the plaintiff documents how several agencies within the United States intelligence and law enforcement communities, including the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (“NGA”) have formally recognized the assignment of FOIA requests without any indicia of “mistake and mischief’ or undue burden. See Pl.’s 443 Opp’n at 14-19; id. Exs. A, B, I, K, M, N. Although the Court is mindful that the CIA may be able to demonstrate that recognizing assignments would categorically impose an u