On February 29, the PIJIP office submitted several Freedom of Information Act requests to the United States Trade Representative to gather more information on the current procedure for compiling Special 301 Reports. Among them was a general request for information that I personally submitted. My request specifically sought access to all records pertaining to certain aspects of the compilation process for the 2012 Special 301 Report. These included records related to:

 

“(1)  meetings occurring between trade associations, coalitions, or individual companies, holding or representing intellectual property rights, and the Special 301 Committee, member(s) of the Special 301 Committee, or other employees of the USTR regarding information to be published in the 2012 Special 301 report

  • which trade associations, coalitions, or individual companies met with the Special 301 Committee, member(s) of the Special 301 Committee, or other employees of the USTR pursuant to compiling information for use in the 2012 Special 301 Report
  • the names and group and/or corporate affiliations of those who represented each of the parties in attendance at such meetings
  • the times and dates when such meetings occurred
  • the topics and minutes from these meetings

 

(2)  any and all correspondence between trade associations, coalitions, or individual companies, holding or representing intellectual property rights, and the Special 301 Committee, member(s) of the Special 301 Committee, or other employees of the USTR regarding information to be published in the 2012 Special 301 report

(3)  any and all discussion relating to how private meetings between trade associations, coalitions, or individual companies, and the Special 301 Committee and/or member(s) of the Special 301 Committee fit within federal law: specifically,

  • the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and/or
  • the Open Meetings Law (5 USC §552b)”

 

As specific as this information might seem, I received a letter this morning from USTR citing that this language was too broad and inadequate to describe the specific documents being sought. The USTR FOIA Office likewise stated that the process of searching for my request would result in an “unreasonable burden on the agency.” The PIJIP office intends to resend this request with the addition of a search date range to make the request more specific. However, the office is open to suggestions as to how to tailor this inquiry to be more specific without substantially limiting the results. Please include any suggestions in the comment section below.

For copies of the actual request and response, please see FOIA Request and Response.