good morning your honour's the district court erred by granting summary judgment and dismissing the action the work the report and recommendation of and the judgment permit the government to violate for you and to violate the first amendment by keeping secret judicial documents by keeping secret the legal reasoning the government uses to prosecute activists the government by elites a decision by this court and us vs erie county because criminal defendants could discover the legal reasoning that leads to the filing of charging documents these legal reasoning documents can be considered judicial documents the agency must be ordered to disclose its legal reasoning documents throughout this litigation the d o j kept conducting inadequate searches each time turning up new documents after it had previously certified that none existed predictably the d o j will appear here today claiming that no documents exist but that is not true records were shown to exist and were or were highly likely to exist appellant demonstrated that the us department of state memorandum which is referenced in the us attorneys manual and which is relied upon by the agency  is legal guidance for their prosecution of activists appellant demanded as a d o j produce that memo the d o j refused and the district court erred in refusing to compel the d o j to produce that memo and other similar records answer this question but what is your interest in the choice my interest is i have no personal interest other than i know him but he is one of several activists who were mentioned in the foia request in the complaint and  the plaintiff's index that i created and submitted to the d o j ok simply the government may not keep secret its working long appellant created an index of references to records requested under the fo request which showed that the agency prosecutes activists for their activism legal determination to prosecute activists are the agencies working along and the absence of general guidelines procedures or protocols for their prosecution of activists the agency must disclose the legal determinations in the cases for those activists listed on that index once the d o j produced some records from this and the d o j should have produced all of the records as of now the only specific documents for which the d o j ever claimed any exemption under for you or their privacy encumbered records of lieutenant daniel choi for no other specific documents were any point exemptions express because they d o j never claimed any foyer exemptions the agency has way that's right to claim those exemptions the d o j must produce avon index of any documents it is withholding there is substantial public interest in guaranteeing the press and the public the right to first amendment protected activities namely a obtaining records writing about the agency's misconduct and any other form of participation in their franchise and any form that that participation may take including petitioning the government for redress of grievances it's notable that all of the activists listed on the foyer request a complaint and in plaintiff's index were arrested for petitioning the government for a redress of grievances in particular for some aids activists the federal law and for there were in particular for federal for i'm sorry in particular for aids activists federal law enforcement agents arrested those activists after the local police declined to arrest the activists we don't know what the legal reasoning was that the agency used to prosecute those activists for having petition their government for redress of grievances what we do know that is what we do know is in the opinion in order issued just two weeks ago by u s district court judge catherine forrest from the southern district in ordering the release of immigration activist robbie ragbir was that her honor compared mr rogge beers arrest with treatment quote and i'm quoting with treatment we associate with regimes we were vile as unjust unquote how come the judge how come judge forest could appreciate what was at stake when activists get arrested but the district court in my file a lawsuit could not the court must overturned it that this court must overturn the judgment of the district court and order the complete release of all the response and records an order limited discovery and imposition of fines and penalties on the agency if that is what it takes to compel the agency to comply with william the agency i am here today because this is agency is not in compliance with for and i'm asking the district court and i'm sorry i'm asking for this court to overturn their judgment of the district court thank you very much missing good morning your honour's roxanna saying assistant united states attorney from the eastern and eastern district of new york on behalf of the defendant police department of justice here plaintiff's appeal really rely solely on his speculation that  documents exist setting forth essentially the procedures manuals or guidelines that the department of justice and more specifically the u s attorney's office for the district of columbia might have in regards to how they target and or prosecute activists for their activism as set forth in the record the government had proffered two declarations in total one from the foyer coordinator who is in charge of the original search and then the second declaration was submitted on behalf of the u s attorney's office from the district of columbia's chief of their civil division and those declarations revealed that the original is caring kelly's and that is she is a paralegal she was also the foyer coordinator and those declarations reveal that the agency consulted both the litigation databases at the u s attorney's office for the district of columbia as well as the paper files and electronic files regarding the prosecution of daniel choi and in the chief of the civil division mr horn pan horn also consulted with all of the litigation heads within the u s attorney's office for the district of columbia and the result was that there were no records that responsive to the foyer requests notably the original foyer request included for specific itemization there was some background provided in the foyer request however the only particular activist that was identified within the four categories of the four requests was a mr lieutenant choi and plaintiff's reference today to an index i would note that that was an index provided following the initiation of the litigation and resolve the litigation should the government feel so inclined it could produce records that were and was trying to be she was your honor and so there were additional records that were provided in response to that index if you will those discovery requests but those responses were not responsive to the original foyer requests one of the provisions that's relied upon to support this speculation that there must be additional documents regarding the targeting  prosecuting of activists is a reference to the u s attorney's manual provision that provides guidance to prosecutors when there's been destruction of property involving a foreign official or foreign  government and that again is outside the scope of the four corners of the foyer requests so in some the declaration is established that there was a reasonable search conducted which meets the adequacy standards set forth by this circuit in addition the mere speculation that there might be additional documents is not only insufficient to rebut the presumption of good faith but it's also insufficient to show that the original search was an adequate unless there are any questions the government will rely on it mission thank you we'll reserve cision