an inference that the true requesting party is plaintiff Feiger himself. The letters were written on law firm letterhead, but the circumstances leading to the FOIA request could make nearly all the firm employees interested parties. Of course, a personal interest in the events is not necessary to justify a request for information. “Anyone whose request for specific information has been denied has standing to bring an action; the requester’s circumstances — why he wants the information, what he plans to do with it, what harm he suffered from the failure to disclose — are irrelevant to his standing.” Zivotofsky ex rel. Ari Z. v. Sec’y of State, 444 F.3d 614, 617 (D.C.Cir.2006); see also Public Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 449, 109 S.Ct. 2558, 105 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989) (<HOLDING>). However, there must be an identity between
holding ripe for review advisory guidelines for processing freedom of information act requests holding that personnel records or conduct investigative records regarding police officers are exempt from disclosure under virginias freedom of information act which exempts personnel records from disclosure holding under orleans that a federally funded private medical research organization is not an agency for purposes of the freedom of information act holding that refusal to disclose records under faca constituted sufficient injury to bestow standing similar to when an agency denies requests for information under the freedom of information act recognizing privacy interest in medical records requested under freedom of information act