UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

 

 ) 

DAVE LEVINTHAL, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) Civ. No. 15-1624 (APM) 

 ) 

 ) ECF 

 v. ) 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S ANSWER 

 Defendant Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or “Commission”) submits this answer 

to the Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed by Plaintiffs Dave Levinthal and the 

Center for Public Integrity. See ECF 1. 

FIRST DEFENSE 

Defendant has complied with its disclosure obligations under the Freedom of Information 

Act (“FOIA”), as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 552, in responding to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request and has not 

improperly withheld any non-exempt, responsive records, or segregable portions thereof. 

Defendant further avers that some or all of the records sought by Plaintiffs may be exempt, in 

part or in full, from release under FOIA exemptions. 

SECOND DEFENSE

The complaint is subject to dismissal to the extent that Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust 

their administrative remedies as to certain information sought in their FOIA request. 

 

Case 1:15-cv-01624-APM Document 7 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 6
2

THIRD DEFENSE

In response to the specifically-enumerated paragraphs, as set forth in the Complaint, 

Defendant admits, denies and otherwise avers as follows:1 

Nature of Action 

1. Paragraph 1 of the Complaint contains Plaintiffs’ legal and factual 

characterization of this action, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is 

required, Defendant admits that Plaintiffs’ action is brought under the FOIA and seeks records 

requested under the statute, but denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph. 

Jurisdiction and Venue 

2-3. Paragraphs 2-3 of the Complaint set forth legal conclusions and allegations of 

subject matter jurisdiction and venue, to which no response is required. Defendant does not 

contest this Court’s jurisdiction over this action or venue in this District. 

Parties 

 4-5. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Complaint allege facts regarding Plaintiffs and their 

reasons for submitting their FOIA request about which Defendant lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations. 

6. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs submitted a request under FOIA for certain 

records from the FEC, see infra ¶ 8, and that Defendant has withheld portions of records 

responsive to the request. Defendant avers that Plaintiffs’ generalized reference to unspecified 

“withheld records” is otherwise too vague to admit or deny. 

                                                            

1

   To the extent the Complaint refers to or quotes from external documents, statutes or other 

sources, Defendant may refer to such materials for their accurate and complete contents in its 

responses to particular allegations; however, Defendant’s references are not intended to be, and 

should not be construed to be, an admission that the cited materials: (a) are correctly cited or 

quoted by Plaintiffs; (b) are relevant to this, or any other, action; or (c) are admissible in this, or 

any other, action.   

Case 1:15-cv-01624-APM Document 7 Filed 11/05/15 Page 2 of 6
3

7. Defendant admits the allegation in the first sentence of Paragraph 7 of the 

Complaint that it is an agency of the United States government that is subject to the requirements 

of FOIA. Defendant admits the allegation in the second sentence that the Commission is in 

possession of certain records referenced in paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, but denies that 

the Commission has exclusive possession and control over many of those records at this time. 

Plaintiffs’ Freedom of Information Request 

8. This paragraph describes the FOIA request at issue in this case, which speaks for 

itself. To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits that Plaintiffs submitted a FOIA 

request on July 6, 2015, and that the request contained the language quoted in this paragraph. 

Defendant further avers that the request itself is the best evidence of its content and respectfully 

refers the Court to the request for a complete and accurate statement of its content. Defendant 

denies the allegations in Paragraph 8 to the extent that the allegations differ from the content of 

the request. 

Defendant’s Processing of the Request 

9. This paragraph describes the Commission’s August 18, 2015 “interim response” 

to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request, which speaks for itself. To the extent a response is required, 

Defendant admits that the statements contained in Paragraph 9 of the complaint were contained 

in the response. Defendant further avers that the response itself is the best evidence of its content 

and respectfully refers the Court to the response for a complete and accurate statement of its 

content. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 9 to the extent that the allegations differ 

from the content of the response. 

Case 1:15-cv-01624-APM Document 7 Filed 11/05/15 Page 3 of 6
4

10. Paragraph 10 of the Complaint contains conclusions of law, to which no response 

is required. To the extent that a response is deemed to be required, Defendant denies that the 

Commission has not yet made a determination within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). 

11. Defendant admits the first sentence in this paragraph. The remainder of this 

paragraph consists of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required, Defendant respectfully refers the Court to the statute for a complete and 

accurate statement of its terms and otherwise denies the allegations in this paragraph. 

12. Admit. 

13. Admit. 

14. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph to the extent it alleges that the 

Commission has not provided a complete response to Plaintiffs regarding their request for the 

NIST study, and further denies that “there are reasonably segregable portions” of the NIST study 

that are not exempt from disclosure under FOIA. The remainder of this paragraph consists of 

legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, 

Defendant respectfully refers the Court to the statute for a complete and accurate statement of its 

terms and otherwise denies the allegations in this paragraph. 

15. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs have a statutory right to a portion of the records 

requested in the July 6, 2015 FOIA request. The remainder of this paragraph consists of legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant 

respectfully refers the Court to the statute for a complete and accurate statement of its terms and 

otherwise denies the allegations in this paragraph. 

 

Case 1:15-cv-01624-APM Document 7 Filed 11/05/15 Page 4 of 6
5

Demand for Relief 

The remainder of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, set forth in separately numbered paragraphs 1-4, 

consists of Plaintiffs’ requests for relief, to which no response is required. To the extent that a 

response is deemed to be required, Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief 

requested, or to any other relief, including attorney’s fees. 

GENERAL DENIAL 

Defendant expressly denies all of the allegations in the Complaint that are not specifically 

admitted or otherwise qualified in this Answer. 

WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendant respectfully prays that Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and judgment be entered in Defendant’s favor and that 

the Court enter such other and further relief for Defendant as is appropriate. 

 

Case 1:15-cv-01624-APM Document 7 Filed 11/05/15 Page 5 of 6
6

Respectfully submitted, 

CHANNING D. PHILLIPS, DC Bar # 415793 

 United States Attorney for the District of 

 Columbia 

 DANIEL F. VAN HORN, DC Bar # 924092 

 Chief, Civil Division 

 

 /s/ 

 JOHN G. INTERRANTE, PA Bar # 61373 

 Assistant United States Attorney 

 Civil Division 

 555 4th Street, NW, Room E-4808 

 Washington, DC 20530 

 Tel: 202.252.2519 

 Fax: 202.252.2599 

Email: John.Interrante@usdoj.gov 

Of Counsel: 

Daniel A. Petalas (D.C. Bar No. 467908) 

Acting General Counsel 

dpetalas@fec.gov 

Lisa J. Stevenson (D.C. Bar No. 457628) 

Deputy General Counsel 

lstevenson@fec.gov 

Kevin Deeley 

Acting Associate General Counsel 

kdeeley@fec.gov 

 

Erin Chlopak (D.C. Bar No. 496370) 

Acting Assistant General Counsel 

echlopak@fec.gov 

Benjamin A. Streeter III 

Attorney 

bstreeter@fec.gov 

 

 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

(202) 694-1650 

Case 1:15-cv-01624-APM Document 7 Filed 11/05/15 Page 6 of 6