UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JACK and RENEE BEAM,

Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 07-cv-1227

Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

vs.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Defendant.

___________________________________________/

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In their Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs Jack and Renee Beam allege that the Justice

Department and Federal Election Commission obtained and/or transferred their private financial

records in violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act. On October 15, 2008, the Court denied

Defendant Commission’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Defendant Justice Department from this

action. Defendant Commission now seeks summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 claiming that

there is no genuine issue of material fact such that Plaintiffs’ claims should now be dismissed in their

entirety. Because there are disputed factual issues contained within the record, the Court should

deny Defendant Commission’s motion.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment shall be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,

and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to

anymaterial fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56(c). There is no issue for trial “unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 1 of 9
-2-

party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. Anderson v Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255

(1986). 

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The ultimate issue before the Court is whether the DOJ and FEC shared, exchanged, or

transferred Plaintiffs’ financial records in violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act.

Specifically, 12 U.S.C. § 3412(a) governs the inter-agency transfer of financial records from/between

the Justice Department and the Commission. Specifically, § 3412(a) provides that:

“Financial records originally obtained pursuant to this title shall not be transferred to another agency

or department unless the transferring agency or department certifies in writing that there is reason

to believe that the records are relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry . . . . 12 U.S.C. §

3412(a). 

In this case, there is record evidence contradicting the Commission’s contentions and

revealing that the Justice Department indeed transferred Plaintiffs’ private financial records to

Defendant Commission without the statutory certification required under the Act.

In its motion for summary judgment, Defendant Commission repeatedly asserts that

“Plaintiffs uncovered no evidence that any private financial records or private financial information

of the Beams – other than the three contribution checks to the Edwards campaign – had ever been

in the possession of anyone at the Commission.” (Defendant’s Brief in Support of Motion for

summary judgment, pg. 7). The Commission’s assertion is squarely contradicted by record evidence.

During his deposition testimony, Commission Staff AttorneyPhillip Olaya, testified that the

Defendant Commission had/has in its possession, and he saw, Plaintiffs’ financial records (Exhibit

A, Depo. Olaya, pg. 18-32). Specifically, Mr. Olaya testified as follows:

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 2 of 9
-3-

Q – Mr. Olaya, were you aware or did you now that the Department

of Justice had gathered the financial records for the Fieger firm

employees, Geoffrey Fieger, Jack Beam, Renee Beam, during the

course of their criminal investigation?

A – Yes, You know, at some point I recognized that.

Q – I first asked you if you were aware that the Department of Justice

had gathered the financial records for Fieger firm employees, Mr.

Geoffrey Fieger, Plaintiff Jack and Renee Beam, during its civil [sic]

investigation. And you said yes, you were aware of that. And I also

told you that yesterday Mr. Roger Hearron testified that he had seen

these financial records, and that they were provided to him by the

Department of Justice. Did you also see any financial records, similar

financial records?

A – The financial records I saw were part of the exhibits at trial that

were – there were on the CD that had the transcript of the trial.

Q – And can you just describe for me in general what those financial

records looked like?

A – I – I can’t recall. For the most part, I believe they were

summaries of financial records.

Q – Summaries prepared by the Department of Justice, or summaries

prepared by the financial institutes?

A – I’m assuming the Department of Justice.

Q – And did those summaries contain line item entries showing the

dates that checks were either written or the dates that checks were

cleared from the financial institutes for payment?

A – I believe they included those dates, yes. (Exhibit A, Depo. Olaya,

pg. 18-21).

When further asked about the format of these financial records and/orsummaries, Mr. Olaya

testified as follows:

Q – And did you see physical hard copies of these summaries and

these reports that you’re referring to, or did you look at them on

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 3 of 9
-4-

electronic format, on a computer screen?

A – I saw them in both formats, hard copy and a computer screen.

Q – And if we could go back to the summaries of financial records

that you had referred to. Can you give me an idea of how many – or

how many summaries or pages were contained in those files?

A – At most, if was a five-page document maybe, the one that I’m

thinking of in particular. 

Q – And . . . there were multiple summaries, or five pages and that’s

it, that’s the total that’s contained in that CD file?

A – No, I believe there are probably other financial types of

documents. I thought the one we were talking about was the one, you

know, that summarized some of that information.

Q – and can you describe to me these other financial documents?

A – I think they showed the individual[‘s] informations about the

individuals involved.

Q – Mr. Olaya, these other financial records that you’re referring to,

were these financial records that were generated by financial

institutes?

A – I honestly can’t remember.

Q – Did these records show individual line items for balances and

debits and credits?

A – I think some of them did, yes.

Q – And do you recall any of the names on these financial records?

A – Its been awhile since I worked on the case. But if you said a

name, it might ring a bell – 

Q – Do you recall seeing, for instance, Geoffrey Fieger’s name?

A – Right

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 4 of 9
-5-

Q – Do you recall seeing, for instance, Paul Broshcay’s name?

A – Yes.

Q – And Jack Beam?

A – Yes

Q – And Renee Beam?

A – Yes

[]

Q – Did you see any sort of certification accompanying those records

that would have been referred to that we looked at in the statute

earlier [12 U.S.C. § 3412(a)]?

A – I don’t recall whether or not there was one.

(Exhibit A, Depo. Olaya, pg. 23-29). Standing alone, Mr. Olaya’s testimony contradicts Defendant

Commission’s assertions that it never received from the Justice Department Plaintiffs’ financial

records in violation of the Act. 

Defendant Commission also claims that whatever financial records it received were publicly

filed exhibits from the Fieger criminal case. But this is also disputed for the following reasons.

First, as the Commission acknowledges in its brief, Plaintiff Jack and Renee Beams financial records

were never used as trial exhibits in the Fieger criminal case. See Defendant Commission’s Brief in

Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, pg. 9 n. 4 (“Indeed, it appears that the Department did

not introduce any financial records of Jack or Renee Beam in the related criminal jury trial of

Geoffrey Fieger in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Michigan[.]”). Thus,

Plaintiffs’ private financial records viewed by Mr. Olaya were not “public” records and are not

contained on the compact disc containing trial exhibits as asserted by Defendant Commission.

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 5 of 9
-6-

There is other record evidence contradicting Defendant Commission’s assertion that it

received only “publicly” filed exhibits from the Fieger criminal trial. Another witness and FEC

employee, Tom Andersen, testified that he was asked to serve as an expert witness in the DOJ’s

criminal case against Mr. Geoffrey Fieger and in preparation of his testimony he meet with DOJ

attorney Kendall Day before the criminal trial (Exhibit B, Depo. Andersen, pg. 19-32). During

their meeting, Mr. Day shared with Mr. Andersen financial records including bank statements of

Fieger Firm employees. 

Shortly thereafter, Mr. Day sent to Mr. Andersen a compact disc which is believed to have

contained the same financial records shown to Mr. Andersen during his face-to-face meeting with

Mr. Day (Exhibit B, Depo. Andersen, Tr. 19-32). Obviously if Mr. Andersen was provided with

financial records for Fieger Firm employees from the DOJ before the Fieger criminal trial then

those documents could not have been “public” documents or “trial exhibits” since they were

provided to the FEC before the commencement of the criminal trial. Upon questioning, Mr.

Andersen testified that the compact disc was either lost or destroyed. Id. at 34.

Another witness, FEC investigator Roger Hearron, testified during his deposition that he too

saw bank statements and financial records for members of the Fieger Law Firm (Exhibit C, Depo.

Hearron, Tr. 56). Hearron further testified that such financial records were provided to him by the

DOJ on either a compact disc or in electronic mail. Id. at 58. Mr. Hearron also testified that the

financial records that were provided to Defendant Commission were “public” because “they were

used as exhibits in [the Fieger] criminal trial . . .” Id. at 57. Hearron did not see any certification

accompanying the financial records that were provided by the Justice Department. Id. at 38-40. 

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 6 of 9
-7-

The testimony of Olaya, Andersen, and Hearron reveals that there are questions of fact as to

whether Justice Department transferred to the Commission Plaintiffs’ financial records without the

necessary certifications required under § 3412(a). Curiously, Defendant Commission never mentions

the deposition testimony of Mr. Olaya in its motion for summary judgment. Instead, the

Commission asks the Court to weight the credibility of such testimony and find that Mr. Olaya’s

testimony should be rejected by the Court. 

Specifically, Defendant Commission asserts that:

to the extent that any FEC witness may appear to have been uncertain

as to the source or nature of information he may (or may not) have

seen, that cannot provide the evidence as to a transfer of private

financial information of the Beams . . . given the clear testimony from

the most knowledgeable witnesses that no such transfer occurred.

(Defendant’s Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, pg. 9 n.4). In other words, the

Commission is asking the Court to reject as incredible the witness testimony of Mr. Olaya and accept

as credible the testimony of other witnesses. Obviously, it is not the function of the Court to weigh

the credibility of witnesses for purposes of a summary judgment proceeding under Rule 56.

Mr. Andersen’s testimony also contradicts the Commission’s claims that the only financial

records it received were publicly filed as trial exhibits in the Fieger criminal case. Mr. Andersen

testified that he met with DOJ attorney Kendall Day in April 2008 at which time he was shown

financial records for Fieger firm employees. This meeting occurred months before the Fieger

criminal case and therefore such documents could not have been publicly filed trial exhibits. Mr.

Andersen also testified that shorter after his meeting with Day, he received a compact disc containing

the records that he viewed at his face-to-face meeting with Day. Andersen testified that the compact

disc containing such records has been lost or destroyed. Id. at 34. 

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 7 of 9
-8-

The aforementioned testimony squarely contradicts the declarations submitted by the

Commission indicating otherwise. The Commission offered the sworn declarations of Ms. Wassom

(former FEC staff attorney) and Mr. Kendall Day (DOJ trial attorney) both of whom swore that there

had been no exchange of Plaintiffs’ private financial records. The Commission’s contention has now

been refuted by three witnesses (Mssrs. Hearron, Anderson, and Olaya) each of whom testified that

they saw the private financial records of Fieger Firm employees, and specifically, the records of Jack

and Renee Beam.

Interestingly, Defendant Commission is also taking a back-up position which is to blame the

Justice Department for violating the Act. As the Commission points out in its brief:

The Commission respectfully disagrees with the Court’s earlier

conclusion (Oct. Mem. Op. At 14) that he Commission could be

liable under the RFPA – even if it had received financial information

about the Beams from the Department – based on any alleged failure

to make and provide notice of a certification as required under 12

U.S.C. § 3412. That provision places certain obligations on the

transferring agency, and plaintiffs have not alleged that the

Commission improperly transferred their financial information to

another agency. As the alleged receiving agency, the Commission

would have had no obligation under Section 3412.

(Defendant Commission’s Brief in Support of Summary Judgment, pg. 9 n.5). To a certain extent,

Plaintiffs agree with the Commission that the Justice Department is liable under the Act for

transferring to the Commission their financial records without the necessary certification. In this

regard, Plaintiffs agree with the Commission that the Justice Department should still be a party to

this proceeding.

However, Plaintiffs disagree that the liability for the transfer rests solely with the Justice

Department. Based on this record, there are questions of fact as to who requested the records, who

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 8 of 9
-9-

transferred them, who received them, and whether such acts were done by agreement or otherwise.

These are all factual disputes that preclude summary judgment.

For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court deny Defendant

Commission’s motion for summary judgment and allow this matter to proceed to trial on the

disputed questions of fact.

Respectfully submitted,

FIEGER, FIEGER, KENNEY, JOHNSON

& GIROUX, P.C.

 

/s/ Michael R. Dezsi 

MICHAEL R. DEZSI (P64530)

Attorney for Plaintiffs

19390 W. Ten Mile Road

Southfield, MI 48075

 (248) 355-5555

m.dezsi@fiegerlaw.com

Dated: August 7, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on August 7, 2009, he electronicallyfiled the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing

to the following:

Benjamin A. Streeter, III at bstreeter@fec.gov

Attorney for Defendant Federal Election Commission

s/ Michael R. Dezsi 

MICHAEL R. DEZSI 

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 9 of 9
INDEX OF EXHIBITS

Exhibits Description

Exhibit A Deposition Transcript of Phillip Olaya (3/11/09

Exhibit B Deposition Transcript of Thomas J. Anderson(3/11/09)

Exhibit C Deposition Transcript of Roger A. Hearron (3/10/09)

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-2 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-3 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-3 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 2 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-3 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 3 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-3 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 4 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-3 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 5 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-3 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 6 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-3 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 7 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-3 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 8 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-3 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 9 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-3 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 10 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-3 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 11 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-3 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 12 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-3 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 13 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-3 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 14 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-4 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-4 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 2 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-4 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 3 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-4 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 4 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-4 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 5 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-4 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 6 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-4 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 7 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-4 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 8 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-4 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 9 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-4 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 10 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-4 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 11 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-4 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 12 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-5 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 1 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-5 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 2 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-5 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 3 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-5 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 4 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-5 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 5 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-5 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 6 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-5 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 7 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-5 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 8 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-5 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 9 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-5 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 10 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-5 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 11 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-5 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 12 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-5 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 13 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-5 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 14 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-5 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 15 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-5 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 16 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-5 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 17 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 145-5 Filed 08/07/2009 Page 18 of 18