Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-65
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
JOHN DOE
1
On Request for Inspection of Records 
)
)
)
)
)
FOIA Control No. 2014-117
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  May 19, 2014 Released:  May 20, 2014
By the Commission:
1. By this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny an application for review filed by 
John Doe (AFR).
2
  Mr. Doe requests review of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) decision by the 
Consumer Policy Division (CPD) of the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau 
(CGB).
3
    
2. Mr. Doe filed a FOIA request seeking “all information” and “documentation” regarding 
an informal complaint alleging identity theft he had filed under Section 1.711 of the Commission’s rules, 
47 C.F.R. § 1.711.
4
  Mr. Doe stated that he was not happy with the handling of his Informal Complaint.
5
  
The FOIA Request was assigned to CPD,
6
the division of CGB that conducted a search of the databases 
that contain the records of informal complaints filed by or on behalf of consumers.  CPD located nine 
documents responsive to the FOIA Request and provided them to Mr. Doe.
7
   Mr. Doe filed an AFR of the 
response to his FOIA request complaining about the adequacy of the search and posing numerous 
                                                     
1
We use the name “John Doe” instead of the requester’s real name because of his oft-expressed privacy concerns.  
See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2) and 47 C.F.R. § 0.445(g); see also e-mail from Mr. Doe to FCC FOIA Public Liaison (filed 
Dec. 30, 2013) (AFR) at 1 (stating that he has “personal safety issues”).
2
   See AFR; see also e-mail from Mr. Doe to Stephanie Kost (Jan. 1, 2014) (January 1, 2014 e-mail), e-mail from 
Mr. Doe to Joanne Wall (Jan. 3, 2014), and letter from Mr. Doe to Office of General Counsel, FCC (filed Jan. 24, 
2014) (all three communications supplementing the AFR).
3
  See letter from Nancy Stevenson, Deputy Chief, CPD, CGB, FCC, to Mr. Doe (Dec. 18, 2013) (December 18, 
2013 FOIA Decision).    
4
  See e-mail from Mr. Doe to FCC FOIA Public Liaison (dated Dec. 14, 2013) (FOIA Request); see also e-mail 
from Mr. Doe to the FCC’s Rural Call Completion Task Force (RCC2000B) (FCC RCC Form 200B e-mailed on 
Oct. 26, 2013 and filed Oct. 28, 2013) (consumer complaint number 13-C00536395-1); facsimile communications 
from Mr. Doe (dated Oct. 30, 2013) (providing additional documents); and letters from Mr. Doe to the Commission 
(two dated Nov. 18, 2013 and one dated Dec. 5, 2013)  (providing additional documents) (collectively, Informal 
Complaint). 
5
  FOIA Request at 1.  Previously, Mr. Doe had indicated to CGB staff that he was satisfied with the resolution of the 
Informal Complaint and, accordingly, CGB closed the Informal Complaint proceeding on December 11, 2013.  See
e-mail from Mary Pontious to Nancy Stevenson, Mike Hennigan, Kurt Schroder, and Sharon Bowers (all 
Commission staff) (Jan. 29, 2014) (outlining Ms. Pontious’s conversation with Mr. Doe regarding the Informal 
Complaint).
6
Among other things, CPD is tasked with monitoring and helping to resolve informal inquiries and complaints.
7
  See December 18, 2013 FOIA Decision at 1.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-65
2
questions about the investigation into his Informal Complaint.
8
Stating that he may be interested in filing 
a civil suit for damages, he requested advice about the process as it relates to the Commission.
9
  He also 
raised various allegations concerning Verizon employees and others stemming from the purported theft of 
his identity and requested that the Commission investigate the matter for possible criminal violations.
10
3. We deny the AFR.  The AFR presents two FOIA issues for our consideration.  First, we 
are satisfied that the Bureau located and provided all records responsive to Mr. Doe’s FOIA request.  The 
record indicates that CPD conducted a diligent search for relevant records regarding the Informal 
Complaint by searching the databases in which it maintained the records of informal complaints filed by 
or on behalf of consumers.  We find that CPD’s search was “reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant 
documents,”
11
and thus satisfied our obligations under the FOIA.  Second, the FOIA does not require 
agencies to answer questions posed in the guise of a FOIA request.
12
  Mr. Doe’s AFR consists almost 
entirely of questions and submissions related to how and whether the Commission and Verizon were 
resolving the issues raised in his Informal Complaint, and his request that the Commission assist Mr. Doe 
in speculative criminal and civil proceedings that he might pursue against Verizon employees and other 
individuals stemming from the issues raised in the Informal Complaint.  The FOIA is not the proper 
mechanism for addressing these matters, including the Commission’s handling of or a carrier’s response 
to an informal complaint.
13
  For these reasons, we deny Mr. Doe’s application for review. 
4. IT IS ORDERED, that the Application for Review filed by John Doe IS DENIED.  Mr. 
Doe may seek judicial review of this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).
14
  
                                                     
8
AFR at 1 and January 1, 2014 e-mail.  
9
AFR at 1.
10
January 1, 2014 e-mail.  
11
Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Campbell v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 164 
F.3d 20, 27 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (noting that an agency must search “using methods which can be reasonably expected 
to produce the information requested”) (quoting Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 
1990)).
12
See Prof Bill Neill, 18 FCC Rcd 14642, 24644 ¶5 and n.8 (2003) (citing DiViao v. Kelley, 571 F.2d 538, 542 (10
th
Cir. 1978)); Hudgins v. IRS, 620 F. Supp. 19, 21 (D.D.C. 1985), aff’d, 808 F.2d 137 (D.C. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 
484 U.S. 803 (1987); and NLRB v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 161-62 (1975).  See also Solomon Oden 
Battle, 23 FCC Rcd 6091,6094 (2008). 
13
A complainant who is unsatisfied with the Commission’s disposition of an informal complaint may file a formal 
complaint with the Commission within six months of the date of the carrier’s report.  If no formal complaint is filed 
within the six month period, the complainant is deemed to have abandoned the unsatisfied complaint.  See 47 C.F.R. 
§§ 1.717-1.718.  CGB will refer an informal complaint to the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau if CGB believes 
there has been a possible rule violation.  We note the CGB communicated extensively with Mr. Doe in its attempts 
to address his questions and concerns raised in the Informal Complaint. 
14
  We note that as part of the Open Government Act of 2007, the Office of Government Information Services 
(OGIS) was created to offer mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as 
a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. Using OGIS services does not affect Mr. Doe’s right to pursue litigation.  
Mr. Doe may contact OGIS in any of the following ways: 
Office of Government Information Services 
National Archives and Records Administration 
Room 2510 
8601 Adelphi Road 
College Park, MD 20740-6001 
E-mail: ogis@nara.gov 
Telephone: 301-837-1996 
Facsimile: 301-837-0348 
Toll-free: 1-877-684-6448
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-65
3
5. The following officials are responsible for this action: Chairman Wheeler, 
Commissioners Clyburn, Rosenworcel, Pai, and O’Rielly.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary