context: The administrative defendants have stated that the list has a dollar value of zero. CREW may not agree with this value, but that does not change the fact that CREW has already received that to which it is entitled under the administrative process. The Court will not require the FEC to go through the motions of a process that has already been completed when doing so would yield no new or useful information.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 335 F.Supp.2d 39, 48
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that "since the process has progressed as specified in the statute, it seems that [the] plaintifff ] ha[s] received everything [it] is entitled to under the FECA"
citation_a.sentence: See Wertheimer v. FEC, 268 F.3d 1070, 1074 (D.C.Cir.2001) (stating that informational injury will not be found if plaintiff cannot show that the legal ruling sought “might lead to additional factual information”); see also Alliance for Democracy v. FEC, 335 F.Supp.2d 39, 48 (D.D.C.2004) (stating that “since the process has progressed as specified in the statute, it seems that [the] plaintifff ] ha[s] received everything [it] is entitled to under the FECA”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 268 F.3d 1070, 1074
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that informational injury will not be found if plaintiff cannot show that the legal ruling sought "might lead to additional factual information"
citation_b.sentence: See Wertheimer v. FEC, 268 F.3d 1070, 1074 (D.C.Cir.2001) (stating that informational injury will not be found if plaintiff cannot show that the legal ruling sought “might lead to additional factual information”); see also Alliance for Democracy v. FEC, 335 F.Supp.2d 39, 48 (D.D.C.2004) (stating that “since the process has progressed as specified in the statute, it seems that [the] plaintifff ] ha[s] received everything [it] is entitled to under the FECA”).