With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Coalition for Open Government and Washington Families Standing Together from distributing the petitions. But the petitions are already available on websites that are not under the control of the State or Intervenors. If anyone with an internet connection can easily obtain the images of the original documents online, it is not clear why anyone would bother filing an additional public records request. And if someone did file such a request, the State would realistically not be contributing to the “further disclosure” of the petitions by responding to the request. A moot case cannot be revived by alleged future harm that is “so remote and speculative that there is no tangible prejudice to the existing interests of the parties.” Feldman, 518 F.3d at 643 (internal quotation marks omitted) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, in the FOIA context, we have held

A: holding that an appeal became moot when the party sold the real estate that formed the basis of the claims
B: holding a claim seeking the humane removal of feral pigs from an island became moot once monitoring indicated that all pigs had been killed
C: holding that a claim is not moot where there is a viable damages claim
D: holding medical monitoring claim was merely component of damages
B.