Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS
Document 1
Filed 06/24/2009
Page 1 of 6
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS
Document 1
Filed 06/24/2009
Page 2 of 6
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS
Document 1
Filed 06/24/2009
Page 3 of 6
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS
Document 1
Filed 06/24/2009
Page 4 of 6
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS
Document 1
Filed 06/24/2009
Page 5 of 6
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS
Document 1
Filed 06/24/2009
Page 6 of 6
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS
Document 1-2
Filed 06/24/2009
Page 1 of 2
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS
Document 1-2
Filed 06/24/2009
Page 2 of 2
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS
Document 2
Filed 06/24/2009
Page 1 of 1
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS
Document 3
Filed 07/24/2009
Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 1:09-cv-01151 (EGS) v. ) ) ) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) ANSWER Defendant Department of Justice, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby answers the individually numbered paragraphs of Plaintiff’s Complaint ("Complaint") as follows: 1. Defendant states that Paragraph 1 of the Complaint is a characterization of the
present action to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant admits that Plaintiff purports to proceed under the Freedom of Information Act and purports to seek the relief it describes in Paragraph 1. 2. The allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint state legal conclusions to which
no response is required. 3. Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 4. 5. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint. Defendant admits that it has conducted surveillance activities in accordance with
guidelines, but otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint. 6. The allegations in Paragraph 6 consist of characterizations to which no response
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS
Document 3
Filed 07/24/2009
Page 2 of 4
is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations. 7. Defendant admits the allegations in the first, fourth and fifth sentences of
Paragraph 7 of the Complaint. Defendant admits that the Attorney General’s guidelines permit investigative assessments but otherwise disputes the characterization of those assessments. Defendant otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint. 8. 9. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint. Defendant admits that a letter dated December 15, 2008 was sent from Valerie
Caproni to Senator John D. Rockefeller IV. Defendant further admits that Paragraph 9 of the Complaint purports to quote and summarize the content of that letter. Defendant respectfully refers the Court to the letter itself for a complete statement of its contents. 10. 11. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint. Defendant admits that Plaintiff faxed a letter to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (“FBI”), and that Paragraph 11 of the Complaint purports to quote from that letter. Defendant respectfully refers the Court to the letter itself for a complete statement of its contents. 12. 13. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint. Defendant admits that the FBI sent a letter dated May 29, 2009 and that
Paragraph 13 of the Complaint purports to quote from that letter. Defendant respectfully refers the Court to the letter itself for a complete statement of its contents. 14. 15. 16. Defendant notes that no Paragraph 14 appears in the Complaint. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint. The allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint state a legal conclusion to
which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant denies the
2
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS
Document 3
Filed 07/24/2009
Page 3 of 4
allegations. 17. The allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint state a legal conclusion to
which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations. 18. The allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint state a legal conclusion to
which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations. 19. Defendant repeats its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 18 of the Complaint as if
fully set forth herein. 20. The allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint state a legal conclusion to
which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations. 21. The allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint state a legal conclusion to
which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations. 22. The allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint state a legal conclusion to
which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations. The remaining material in the Complaint constitutes Plaintiff’s prayer for relief, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant repeats its responses above as if set forth fully herein and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to relief it seeks.
3
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS
Document 3
Filed 07/24/2009
Page 4 of 4
Wherefore, Defendant prays that the Court enter judgment on its behalf and award it costs and other relief as the Court deems fit. Dated: July 24, 2009 Respectfully submitted, TONY WEST Assistant Attorney General JOHN TYLER Assistant Director Civil Division /s/Bryan R. Diederich Bryan R. Diederich (MA BBO # 647632, NY Reg. # 4216164) Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch P.O. Box 883, Room 7109 Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 305-0198 Fax: (202) 616-8470 E-mail: bryan.diederich@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendant
4
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS
Document 4
Filed 07/24/2009
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 1:09-cv-01151 (EGS) v. ) ) ) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Please take notice of the appearance of the undersigned counsel on behalf the Defendant in the above-captioned matter. Pursuant to LcvR 83.1(j), the undersigned certifies that he is
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS
Document 4
Filed 07/24/2009
Page 2 of 2
familiar with the Local Rules of this Court and the other materials set forth in LcvR 83.8(b) and LcvR 83.9.
Dated: July 24, 2009
Respectfully submitted, TONY WEST Assistant Attorney General JOHN TYLER Assistant Director Civil Division /s/Bryan R. Diederich Bryan R. Diederich (MA BBO # 647632, NY Reg. # 4216164) Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch P.O. Box 883, Room 7109 Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 305-0198 Fax: (202) 616-8470 E-mail: bryan.diederich@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendant
2
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS
Document 5
Filed 08/17/2009
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 1:09-cv-01151 (EGS) v. ) ) ) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER Pursuant to the Court’s minute order of August 3, 2009, plaintiff Electronic Frontier Foundation and Defendant Department of Justice jointly move the Court to enter a briefing schedule as proposed below. The parties have agreed upon and propose that the Court order that: 1. Defendant will complete the processing of Plaintiff’s Freedom of Information of
Act Request by October 13, 2009; 2. 3. Defendant will make any motion for summary judgment by November 13, 2009; Plaintiff will oppose Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and/or cross
move for summary judgment by December 14, 2009; 4. Defendant will reply to Plaintiff’s opposition and/or oppose Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment (if any) by January 4, 2009; 5. Plaintiff will reply to Defendant’s opposition to any cross-motion for summary
judgment (if any) by January 19, 2009.
1
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS
Document 5
Filed 08/17/2009
Page 2 of 2
Respectfully submitted,
TONY WEST Assistant Attorney General /s/David L. Sobel DAVID L. SOBEL D.C. Bar No. 360418 Electronic Frontier Foundation 1875 Connecticut Ave, N.W. Suite 650 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 797-9009 MARCIA HOFMANN D.C. Bar No. 484136 Electronic Frontier Foundation 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 (415) 436-9333 Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant JOHN TYLER Assistant Director Civil Division /s/Bryan R. Diederich Bryan R. Diederich (MA BBO # 647632, NY Reg. # 4216164) Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch P.O. Box 883, Room 7109 Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 305-0198 Fax: (202) 616-8470 E-mail: bryan.diederich@usdoj.gov
Dated: August 17, 2009
2