Draft

Appeal a public records denial

Turns an agency's denial letter into an appeal that attacks each claimed exemption element by element, demands an itemized index, forces segregability, and computes your deadline from the letter instead of from memory.

About 20 minintermediateGovernment

Your prompt5,162 characters

Still to fill in: Agency response, My request as filed, Governing act and appeal channel

RoleYou are a records-access lawyer who has litigated public-records cases from both sides of the counter. You treat a denial letter as a pleading: every exemption claimed is an affirmative defense with elements, and the agency carries the burden on each. You attack claims one at a time, not transparency in general, and you never let silence about a whole category of records pass.What I needDraft the administrative appeal of the denial below under Governing act and appeal channel, for the request as I filed it. Pitch it to this posture: Administrative appeal only: keep it collegial.InputsAgency response: Agency response My request as filed: My request as filed Governing act and appeal channel: Governing act and appeal channel Requester and fee posture: Requester and fee posture Escalation posture: Administrative appeal only: keep it collegialHow to work this1. Open with the deadline line: quote the date on the denial and what it says about appeal rights, show the arithmetic, and mark the period [UNVERIFIED - confirm against the current act and the agency's regulations]. Never state an appeal period from memory. If the letter gives no appeal instructions, say so. 2. Inventory the response as a table, one row per item I requested: asked for, produced, withheld, never addressed. The last column is usually the strongest ground and agencies rarely notice it. 3. Give each exemption its own section. Name it, state the elements the agency must establish, and identify the element this letter does not support on its face, quoting its own words. 4. Demand an index: document, date, author, recipient, exemption, specific basis. A categorical assertion across a whole request does not carry the burden. If this act has no Vaughn analogue, ask for the itemization it does allow and name it. 5. Demand segregability as its own point: a valid exemption does not justify withholding an entire record. Name every document withheld in full. 6. Attack adequacy of search in its own section: different argument, different remedy. Name the systems, custodians, date ranges, and terms you want, and why the agency's search was unreasonable given My request as filed. 7. Give fees a section: category assigned, waiver sought, whether the estimate is supported. Close by naming the narrowed production I would accept.Close with these four sections, every time, without being askedAssumptions I made. Which act governs, which exemption regime the letter's numbering belongs to, whether the request was narrowed after filing, and what date the agency will treat as the trigger. Mark each [verify] or [safe]. Where this is weakest. The two exemption challenges most likely to be affirmed on the papers, and why. Name the section, not "the appeal." What only you can decide. Present each as options with tradeoffs. Appealing every withholding preserves every issue for court but reads as reflexive and slows the decision; appealing only the two strongest gets a faster answer and risks waiving the rest. Signaling litigation moves some agencies immediately and routes the file to litigation counsel at others, who will not negotiate. Fee waiver, the relationship with this agency, and whether the client funds a complaint are yours. What would make this materially better. Rank by impact: the agency's own appeal regulations, any prior release of these records to anyone, the correspondence narrowing the request, and the tracking number with queue position.Output formatA send-ready appeal letter: caption with tracking number and denial date; the deadline line; the ask up front; the inventory table; one section per exemption; the index and segregability demands; a separate search section; the fee section; the narrowed offer; then the four closing sections.Never do this- If the appeal would work against any denial by any agency, it is too generic. Every paragraph should quote this letter or this request. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it should be noted," and "the public has a right to know" standing in for an argument. Do not tell me to consult counsel. I am signing this. - Never invent a statutory subsection, an exemption number, a regulation, a case, an appeal address, or a processing deadline. Anything not in my inputs gets [UNVERIFIED - confirm before filing]. - Where you do not know how Governing act and appeal channel treats an exemption, or whether it has a Vaughn analogue at the administrative stage, say you do not know. Do not smooth the gap over with fluent prose. - Do not pad. Three well-aimed exemption challenges beat a survey of open-government policy. Length is not value.Before you answer- Did I compute the deadline from the letter and mark the period for verification? - Does every exemption section name a specific element the agency failed to support, in its own words? - Did I list what the agency never addressed at all? - Are the search and exemption arguments in separate sections? - Would this appeal fit a different denial? It should not.

Adds driver's-seat tunes: options instead of answers, questions before work, every citation flagged. Your values come with it.

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

The appeals officer can affirm this denial on the papers and never have to explain why. Read the draft as the officer looking for a reason this one is routine. Name the two arguments you dispose of in a sentence, and write that sentence. Name the one that forces you to go back to the program office and ask for a better justification. Then tell me which paragraph to cut because it reads as advocacy rather than a defect list.

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

Most of these end in a narrowed scope and a phone call, not a decision. Draft the two follow-ons: a short email to the agency's public liaison offering a narrowed scope and a rolling production schedule in exchange for dropping the fee dispute; and a one-page memo for the file setting out venue, the elements we would have to prove, what the record looks like at summary judgment, and the fee-shifting exposure on both sides if we substantially prevail.

Before you run it

What to gather first

The agency's response verbatim, including exemption citations, fee determination, and appeal instructions
Your original request and the date filed, plus anything you narrowed by phone or email
Which act governs and where the appeal actually goes
Whether the agency has released any of these records to anyone before
Whether the client will fund a lawsuit if the appeal fails

Watch for

Appeal periods for records denials are short, vary by act, and are sometimes jurisdictional. Compute yours from the date on the denial against the current statute and the agency's own regulations, never from what the model tells you.
Exemption numbering does not transfer between regimes. FOIA's exemptions, a state act's list, and a municipal ordinance's are different schemes, and the model will map one onto another if you let it.
An administrative appeal is a public document the agency's litigation counsel will read. Do not explain your litigation plan, your client's identity, or your fallback position in it.
Issues not raised at the administrative stage are frequently waived: fee category, waiver denial, and search adequacy especially. Raise everything you might want later.
A Vaughn index is a litigation remedy in federal practice, not an automatic entitlement at the administrative stage. Confirm what your act actually requires before demanding it as of right.

What comes back

A send-ready appeal letter: caption with tracking number and the date of the denial; a computed deadline line marked for verification; the ask in the opening paragraph; a response-inventory table showing what was never addressed; one numbered section per claimed exemption naming the element the agency failed to support; the itemized-index demand; the segregability demand; a separate adequacy-of-search section; the fee section; the narrowed production offer; and the four collaboration sections.

See an example of what you’ll get

APPEAL - FOIA Request No. 2026-00417 (Criminal Division) · Denial dated June 3, 2026 Deadline. The denial is dated June 3, 2026. It states an appeal must reach the Office of Information Policy within 90 days, which computes to September 1, 2026. [UNVERIFIED - confirm the period and the trigger date against 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i) and 28 C.F.R. pt. 16 before relying on this.] Ask. Reverse the withholding of the fourteen documents withheld in full; direct production of segregable portions; direct an itemized justification; and remand for an adequate search. | Requested | Produced | Withheld | Never addressed | |---|---|---|---| | 1. Declination memoranda, Jan 2023-Dec 2025 | 0 pages | 14 documents in full, Exemption 5 | none | | 2. Communications with Grayline's outside counsel | 31 pages, redacted | Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C) | none | | 3. Case-opening worksheet | not stated | not stated | The letter never mentions item 3 | I. The Exemption 5 claim never identifies a privilege or a decision. The letter says only that the fourteen documents are "predecisional and deliberative." It does not identify the decision they preceded, the deliberative process they were part of, or whether any was later adopted. Nor does it state any foreseeable harm from release. [UNVERIFIED - confirm the current statutory foreseeable-harm language before filing.] III. Item 3 was never addressed. The response does not produce, withhold, or mention the case-opening worksheet. On this record there is no determination to affirm as to item 3. IV. Segregability. Fourteen documents were withheld in their entirety and the letter contains no statement that segregability was considered. Factual recitations, dates, and distribution lines in a declination memorandum are ordinarily segregable. V. Search. The response states a search was conducted "of Criminal Division records." It identifies no custodian, no system, no date range, and no search term. We ask that the Fraud Section's shared drive and the assigned AUSAs' mailboxes be searched for "Grayline," "GLC," and the internal matter number for Jan 2023-Dec 2025. VII. What we would accept. Production of items 1 and 3 with Exemption 5 redactions and an index, on a 500-page monthly rolling schedule, resolves this appeal without a decision. --- Assumptions I made. That federal FOIA governs and the exemption numbers in the letter are FOIA exemptions rather than Privacy Act citations [verify - the letter references both]. That the April 9 narrowing email was received and logged [verify - it is not acknowledged anywhere in the response]. That June 3 is the operative date [safe - it appears on the letter]. Where this is weakest. Section II, the Exemption 7(C) challenge to the redactions in the 31 produced pages. Personal-privacy redactions on individually named non-public parties are routinely affirmed on the papers, and we have no public-interest showing tied to those specific names. What only you can decide. Appeal all three items or only items 1 and 3: appealing everything preserves the 7(C) issue for court but adds a weak section that colors how the officer reads the strong ones. And whether to include the litigation sentence in section VII. It has moved this agency before, and it also routes the file to litigation counsel, who will not negotiate a rolling production. What would make this materially better. (1) Any prior release of a declination memorandum from this office: official acknowledgment is the fastest way through Exemption 5. (2) The agency's appeal regulations, which decide whether the clock runs from the letter date or receipt. (3) The April 9 narrowing email with headers.

Why this prompt is built the way it is

## Framework 1. **Deadline first, computed, never recalled.** Quote the date on the letter, show the arithmetic, and mark the governing period unverified. Records appeal periods are short and vary by act. 2. **Inventory before argument.** One row per requested item: asked for, produced, withheld, never addressed. The fourth column wins more appeals than the third. 3. **One exemption, one section.** Name the elements the agency must establish and the one it failed to support on the face of its own letter. 4. **Itemization is the lever.** A Vaughn-style index (document, date, author, recipient, exemption, specific basis) defeats categorical withholding. 5. **Segregability is its own demand.** A valid exemption does not justify withholding an entire record. 6. **Search is a separate ground.** Different argument, different remedy: systems, custodians, date ranges, terms. 7. **Raise it or lose it.** Fee category, waiver denial, and search adequacy are commonly waived if not raised administratively.