A federal judge has denied William B. Ball’s request to amend his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit to include the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) as a defendant. Ball, currently serving a 262-month prison sentence for attempted child enticement and transportation of child pornography, has been actively pursuing legal avenues to obtain records related to his arrest and prosecution.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in a Memorandum Opinion issued by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg, found that allowing the amendment would be futile because a previous judgment already addressed the issue Ball is trying to raise.
Background of the Case
Ball’s legal journey began after his 2018 arrest in Florida, stemming from an online sting operation. He pled guilty to federal charges and received a lengthy prison sentence. Since then, he has filed multiple FOIA lawsuits seeking information about his case.
This particular case is Ball’s third FOIA suit. Initially, it targeted the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. During the course of this case, Ball re-submitted a FOIA request to EOUSA, which was subsequently denied on the grounds that it duplicated a request already “in litigation.” EOUSA informed Ball that any documents resulting from the request would be released in that other suit.
Unsatisfied with this response, Ball filed a motion seeking permission to add EOUSA as a defendant to his current lawsuit, hoping to compel the agency to produce the requested documents.
The Court’s Reasoning
Judge Boasberg denied Ball’s motion, explaining that the doctrines of res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) prevented Ball from relitigating the issue with EOUSA.
Claim Preclusion: The court determined that Ball’s current FOIA request concerning a specific DOJ memorandum was already addressed in a previous FOIA lawsuit, *Ball v. EOUSA, 2024 WL 4024494 (D.D.C. Sep. 3, 2024)*. The court found that both suits shared the same “nucleus of facts” because they sought the same document. Furthermore, the court had already ruled in the prior case that EOUSA was justified in withholding the document under Exemption 5 of the FOIA, which protects attorney work product.
To establish claim preclusion, the court considered four elements: (1) the same claim or cause of action, (2) the same parties, (3) a final, valid judgment on the merits, and (4) a court of competent jurisdiction. All four elements were met in this case, the court concluded.
Issue Preclusion: The court also found that issue preclusion applied. This doctrine prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has already been decided. The court highlighted that the specific document Ball was seeking in this case didn’t “differ materially” from the materials at issue in the prior action. The court had previously determined that the work-product privilege protected the document from disclosure.
The court also addressed the element of fairness, finding that preclusion would not be unfair to Ball because he and EOUSA were parties to the previous suit with the same stakes. There was no evidence presented that the prior proceedings were defective.
The Ruling
Ultimately, the court concluded that allowing Ball to amend his complaint to add EOUSA would be futile because the claim was barred by both claim preclusion and issue preclusion. As a result, Ball’s motion to join EOUSA as a party was denied.