NSA: Please Stop Mailing Us FOIA Requests(mynsarecords.com)

  Courts have recognized that the legislative history of the 1974 FOIA
  amendments indicates that a description of a requested record is
  sufficient if it enables a professional agency employee familiar with
  the subject area to locate the record with a "reasonable amount of
  effort."[105] Courts have also found that requests that are so broad and
  sweeping that they lack specificity are not reasonably described.[106]

  Courts have explained that "[t]he rationale for this rule is that
  FOIA was not intended to reduce government agencies to full-time
  investigators on behalf of requesters,"[107] or to allow requesters
  to conduct "fishing expeditions" through agencyfiles.108 Courts have
  recognized that an agency's FOIA staff is neither required to have
  "clairvoyant capabilities" to discern the requester's needs,[109] nor
  must they spend "countless numbers of personnel hours seeking needles in
  bureaucratic haystacks."[110]
  
  [107] Assassination Archives & Research Ctr. v. CIA, 720 F. Supp. 217,
  219 (D.D.C. 1989), aff'd in pertinent part, No. 89-5414, 1990 WL
  123924 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 1990) (per curiam); accord Nurse v. Sec'y
  of the Air Force, 231 F. Supp. 2d 323, 329 (D.D.C. 2002) (quoting
  Assassination Archives & Research Ctr., 720 F. Supp. at 219); see,
  e.g., Bloeser v. DOJ, 811 F. Supp. 2d 316, 321 (D.D.C. 2011) (reasoning
  that "[b]ecause 'FOIA' was not intended to reduce government agencies
  to full-time investigators on behalf of requesters, . . . [t]o the
  extent that plaintiff can identify documents which he believes exist in
  a particular office within [DOJ], such identifying information should
  have been included as part of his original FOIA request"); Satterlee
  v. IRS, No. 05-3181, 2006 WL 3160963, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 30, 2006)
  (finding that request was improper where it would require agency to
  "conduct legal research" and answer questions "disguised as . . . FOIA
  request"); Frank v. DOJ, 941 F. Supp. 4, 5 (D.D.C. 1996) (stating that
  agency is not required to "dig out all the information that might
  exist, in whatever form or place it might be found, and to create
  a document that answers plaintiff's questions"); Lamb v. IRS, 871
  F. Supp. 301, 304 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (finding requests outside scope of
  FOIA when they require legal research, are unspecific, or seek answers
  to interrogatories); Trenerry v. Dep't of the Treasury, No. 92-5053,
  1993 WL 26813, at *3 (10th Cir. Feb. 5, 1993) (holding that agency not
  required to provide personal services such as legal research).
  
  
  [108] Immanuel v. Sec'y of the Treasury, No. 94-884, 1995 WL 464141,
  at *1 (D. Md. Apr. 4, 1995), aff'd, 81 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 1996)
  (unpublished table decision); see also Dale v. IRS, 238 F. Supp. 2d 99,
  104-05 (D.D.C. 2002) (concluding that request seeking "'any and all
  documents . . . that refer or relate in any way'" to requester failed to
  reasonably describe records sought and "amounted to an all-encompassing
  fishing expedition of files at [agency's] offices across the country, at
  taxpayer expense").