they duplicate the relief sought under FOIA. Plaintiff admits that both claims are only “alternative ground[s] for relief’ and itself supports proceeding forward on its FOIA claim alone. Opp. at 13. This reasonable concession yields the proper result. Defendants correctly state that the APA only affords judicial review, of an agency action where “there is no other adequate remedy,” and “this court has repeatedly held that FOIA is an alternative adequate remedy to the APA where an APA claim is premised on a violation of FOIA or seeks relief that can be obtained through FOIA.” Mot. at 21-22 (collecting cases). Plaintiff concedes that it only asserted its APA claim in light of another District Court’s ruling in Pohl v. EPA, No. 09-1480, 2010 WL 4388071, at *5 (W.D.Pa. Oct. 29, 2010) (<HOLDING>). See Opp. at 13. The parties, however, agree
holding that judicial review under apa standards is alone sufficient to preclude a bivens action holding that courts have consistently required exhaustion of administrative remedies under foia holding that standard of review is a matter of procedural rather than substantive law recognizing abuse of discretion rather than de novo standard of review holding that apa rather than foia controls courts review of requests for grantee research data under circular a110