It is now clear that you have not done any research about what constitutes a valid FOIA request. If you would like to do some research the DOJ Procedures guide that I have previously recommended is extremely detailed and thorough. I was serious when I said you might enjoy reading it if you are interested in FOIA. Please note, I have only included footnotes 107 and 108 because they seem to be the most relevant to this comment.
Courts have recognized that the legislative history of the 1974 FOIA
amendments indicates that a description of a requested record is
sufficient if it enables a professional agency employee familiar with
the subject area to locate the record with a "reasonable amount of
effort."[105] Courts have also found that requests that are so broad and
sweeping that they lack specificity are not reasonably described.[106]
Courts have explained that "[t]he rationale for this rule is that
FOIA was not intended to reduce government agencies to full-time
investigators on behalf of requesters,"[107] or to allow requesters
to conduct "fishing expeditions" through agencyfiles.108 Courts have
recognized that an agency's FOIA staff is neither required to have
"clairvoyant capabilities" to discern the requester's needs,[109] nor
must they spend "countless numbers of personnel hours seeking needles in
bureaucratic haystacks."[110]
[107] Assassination Archives & Research Ctr. v. CIA, 720 F. Supp. 217,
219 (D.D.C. 1989), aff'd in pertinent part, No. 89-5414, 1990 WL
123924 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 1990) (per curiam); accord Nurse v. Sec'y
of the Air Force, 231 F. Supp. 2d 323, 329 (D.D.C. 2002) (quoting
Assassination Archives & Research Ctr., 720 F. Supp. at 219); see,
e.g., Bloeser v. DOJ, 811 F. Supp. 2d 316, 321 (D.D.C. 2011) (reasoning
that "[b]ecause 'FOIA' was not intended to reduce government agencies
to full-time investigators on behalf of requesters, . . . [t]o the
extent that plaintiff can identify documents which he believes exist in
a particular office within [DOJ], such identifying information should
have been included as part of his original FOIA request"); Satterlee
v. IRS, No. 05-3181, 2006 WL 3160963, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 30, 2006)
(finding that request was improper where it would require agency to
"conduct legal research" and answer questions "disguised as . . . FOIA
request"); Frank v. DOJ, 941 F. Supp. 4, 5 (D.D.C. 1996) (stating that
agency is not required to "dig out all the information that might
exist, in whatever form or place it might be found, and to create
a document that answers plaintiff's questions"); Lamb v. IRS, 871
F. Supp. 301, 304 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (finding requests outside scope of
FOIA when they require legal research, are unspecific, or seek answers
to interrogatories); Trenerry v. Dep't of the Treasury, No. 92-5053,
1993 WL 26813, at *3 (10th Cir. Feb. 5, 1993) (holding that agency not
required to provide personal services such as legal research).
[108] Immanuel v. Sec'y of the Treasury, No. 94-884, 1995 WL 464141,
at *1 (D. Md. Apr. 4, 1995), aff'd, 81 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 1996)
(unpublished table decision); see also Dale v. IRS, 238 F. Supp. 2d 99,
104-05 (D.D.C. 2002) (concluding that request seeking "'any and all
documents . . . that refer or relate in any way'" to requester failed to
reasonably describe records sought and "amounted to an all-encompassing
fishing expedition of files at [agency's] offices across the country, at
taxpayer expense").