of authenticity are belied by the DEA’s own records as to various names and alternative spellings used by DeLoach. See Pltf.’s Reply Ex. A. A good faith effort, given the policy favoring disclosure, might have involved at least a cursory search for DeLoach. Unlike other cases in which the government was earnestly attempting to comply, but had failed to do so due to administrative backlog or missing documents, the DEA from the beginning asserted a blanket position. It did not make its first computerized sea 473 (8th Cir.1981) (finding a suit not necessary where the government had told plaintiff it was unable to locate the records and was conducting a special search; request also broad and vague); Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council, Inc. v. Usery, 546 F.2d 509, 513-14 (2d Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). OL & S vigorously pursued and exhausted its
holding a suit not necessary where the government sent a telegram explaining the reason for delay and its ongoing attempts to comply and asked for plaintiffs phone number to discuss it plaintiff filed suit the day after receiving the telegram holding in the context of the 90day period during which a plaintiff must bring suit after receiving a right to sue letter that in the absence of a recognized equitable consideration the court cannot extend the limitations period by even one day holding that a prior suit and a subsequent suit between the same parties did not involve the same claim because the evidence necessary to sustain the subsequent suit was insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to relief in the prior suit holding not necessary a suit filed while the government was still searching for the files and the plaintiffs requests were unduly broad holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state