Alliance of Nuclear Workers Advocacy Groups

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00076-RM-KLM ALLIANCE OF NUCLEAR WORKERS ADVOCACY GROUPS, ROCKY FLATS DOWNWINDERS, CANDELAS GLOWS/ROCKY FLATS GLOWS, ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION NETWORK (EIN) INC., ROCKY FLATS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, ROCKY FLATS RIGHT TO KNOW, and ROCKY MOUNTAIN PEACE & JUSTICE CENTER, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ______________________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court sua sponte upon review of this matter. This Court outlined the relevant background in its Amended Order (ECF No. 32). In that Amended Order, the Court administratively closed the case and directed Respondent to file a report regarding its possession of documents Petitioners seek in their Petition (ECF No. 1, at 23–24). On May 5, 2020, Respondent filed its Response to the Amended Order (“Response”). (ECF No. 33.) In its Response, Respondent asserts that after a thorough review of its offices and storage spaces as well as the Federal Records Center it was unable to find any documents requested in the Petition. (Id. at ¶¶ 7–11.) Respondent supported its Response with a Declaration of Victoria Soltis, the Supervisory Contract Specialist for the United States Attorney for the District of Colorado and the Records Management Coordinator for the office. (ECF No. 33-1, ¶ 1.) In short, submitted documents remain the property of the party who submitted them, and it is entirely consistent with United States Attorney’s Procedures (“USAP”) No. 3-13.300.005 that the United States Attorney’s Office would not possess the document requested in the Petition. Ud. J 6.) Respondent’s Response supports a finding that it does not possess the records sought by Petitioners and that this Court could not compel Respondent to produce documents Respondent does not have. See, e.g., Lankford v. City of Hobart, 73 F.3d 283, 288 (10th Cir. 1996) (lack of appropriate remedy moots claims for relief). Accordingly, it is ORDERED (1) That, the Court finding good cause to reopen the case pursuant to D.C.COLO.L.CivR 41.2, the Clerk shall reopen this case; and (2) That on or before June 12, 2020, Petitioners shall SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for mootness. DATED this 26th day of May, 2020. BY THE COURT: United States District Judge