Judicial Watch Lawsuit

Case 1:18-cv-00300 Document 1 Filed 02/09/18 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., )

425 Third Street SW, Suite 800 )
Washington, DC 20024, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No.
v. )
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE )
The Executive Office )
Office of the Legal Adviser, Suite 5.600 )
600 19th Street NW )
Washington, DC 20522, )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. brings this action against Defendant U.S. Department of
State to compel compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (“FOIA”). As
grounds therefor, Plaintiff alleges as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)
and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
2. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. is a not-for-profit, educational organization
incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia and headquartered at 425 Third Street
SW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20024. Plaintiff seeks to promote transparency, accountability,
and integrity in government and fidelity to the rule of law. As part of its mission, Plaintiff
regularly requests records from federal agencies pursuant to FOIA. Plaintiff analyzes the
responses and disseminates its findings and the requested records to the American public to
inform them about “what their government is up to.”
4. Defendant U.S. Department of State is an agency of the United States
Government. Defendant has possession, custody, and control of records to which Plaintiff seeks
access. Defendant is located at 600 19th Street NW, Washington, DC 20522.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
5. On October 31, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the U.S. Department
of State (“DoS” or “State”) seeking the following:
1. Any and all requests for information, analyses, summaries, assessments, transcripts,
or similar records submitted to any Intelligence Community member agency by former
United States Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Powers concerning,
regarding, or relating to the following:
• Any actual or suspected effort by the Russian government or any individual acting
on behalf of the Russian government to influence or otherwise interfere with the
2016 presidential election.
• The alleged hacking of computer systems utilized by the Democratic National

Committee and/or the Clinton presidential campaign.
• Any actual or suspected communication between any member of the Trump

presidential campaign or transition team and any official or employee of the
Russian government or any individual acting on behalf of the Russian government.
• The identities of U.S. citizens associated with the Trump presidential campaign or
transition team who were identified pursuant to intelligence collection activities.
2. Any and all records or responses received by former United States Ambassador to the
United Nations Samantha Powers and/or any employee, staff member, or representative
of United States Mission to the United Nations in response to any request described in
part 1 of this request.
3. Any and all records of communication between any official, employee, or

representative of any Intelligence Community member agency and former United States
Ambassador to the United Nation Samantha Powers and/or any employee, staff
-2-
member, or representative of the United States Mission to the United Nations

concerning, regarding, or relating to any request described in part 1 of this request.
The time frame of the request was identified as January 1, 2016 through the present.
6. By letter dated November 21, 2017, State confirmed that it received the request
on November 8, 2017 and assigned the request Tracking Number F-2017-16915.
7. As of the date of this Complaint, Defendant has failed to: (i) produce the
requested records or demonstrate that the requested records are lawfully exempt from
production; (ii) notify Plaintiff of the scope of any responsive records Defendant intends to
produce or withhold and the reasons for any withholdings; or (iii) inform Plaintiff that it may
appeal any adequately specific, adverse determination.
COUNT I
Violation of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552
8. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 7 as if fully stated herein.
9. Plaintiff is being irreparably harmed by reason of Defendant’s violation of FOIA,
and Plaintiff will continue to be irreparably harmed unless Defendant is compelled to comply
with FOIA.
10. To trigger FOIA’s administrative exhaustion requirement, Defendant was
required to determine whether to comply with Plaintiff’s request by December 7, 2017 at the
latest. At a minimum, Defendant was required to: (i) gather and review the requested
documents; (ii) determine and communicate to Plaintiff the scope of any responsive records
Defendant intended to produce or withhold and the reasons for any withholdings; (iii) inform
Plaintiff that it may appeal any adequately specific, adverse determination; and (iv) make the
records available promptly thereafter. See, e.g., Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington v. Federal Election Commission, 711 F.3d 180, 188-89 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
-3-
11. Because Defendant failed to determine whether to fully comply with Plaintiff’s
request within the time period required by FOIA, Plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted its
administrative appeal remedies. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: (1) order Defendant to
conduct searches for any and all records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request and demonstrate
that it employed search methods reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of records responsive
to Plaintiff’s FOIA request; (2) order Defendant to produce, by a date certain, any and all non-
exempt records to Plaintiff’s FOIA request and a Vaughn index of any responsive records
withheld under claim of exemption; (3) enjoin Defendant from continuing to withhold any and
all non-exempt records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request; (4) grant Plaintiff an award of
attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(4)(E); and (5) grant Plaintiff such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: February 9, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
s/ Chris Fedeli
Chris Fedeli
D.C. Bar No. 472919
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20024
(202) 646-5172
Counsel for Plaintiff
-4-

Judicial Watch Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judicial Watch Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judicial Watch Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:18-cv-00300 Document 1 Filed 02/09/18 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., )

grounds therefor, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

2. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).

3. Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. is a not-for-profit, educational organization

inform them about “what their government is up to.”

4. Defendant U.S. Department of State is an agency of the United States

access. Defendant is located at 600 19th Street NW, Washington, DC 20522.

of State (“DoS” or “State”) seeking the following:

• The alleged hacking of computer systems utilized by the Democratic National

• Any actual or suspected communication between any member of the Trump

3. Any and all records of communication between any official, employee, or

member, or representative of the United States Mission to the United Nations

on November 8, 2017 and assigned the request Tracking Number F-2017-16915.

appeal any adequately specific, adverse determination.

Violation of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552

8. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 7 as if fully stated herein.

9. Plaintiff is being irreparably harmed by reason of Defendant’s violation of FOIA,

10. To trigger FOIA’s administrative exhaustion requirement, Defendant was

administrative appeal remedies. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).

Dated: February 9, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

Counsel for Plaintiff

You might also like