UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GEOFFREY NELS FIEGER

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-CV-14125

vs.

HON. DAVID M. LAWSON

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

MICHAEL R. DEZSI (P64530)

Counsel for Plaintiff

FIEGER, FIEGER, KENNEY & JOHNSON, P.C.,

19390 W. Ten Mile Rd.

Southfield, MI 48075

(248) 355-5555

______________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

By and through counsel, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny

Defendant Commission’s motion for summary judgment in this FOIA action. In its motion for

summary judgment, Defendant Commission contends that it has adequately search for documents

responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests, and that it has produced all such responsive documents not

subject to exemption. Based on the affidavits supporting the Commission’s motion, Plaintiff

contests not only the adequacy of the Commission’s search, but also the legitimacy of the

Commission’s claimed exemptions.

I. Background

Plaintiff filed the instant action on September 29, 2008, pursuant to the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., after Defendant Federal Election Commission

Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 1 of 10
-2-

(“FEC”) failed to respond to Plaintiff’s FOIA request dated July 3, 2008. In his FOIA request, Mr.

Fieger sought the following documents:

1. Any and all documents of any kind, including, but not limited to, memoranda,

correspondence and e-mails dated from January 2001 through the present between

officials, agents and/or employees of the FEC and officials, agents and/or employees

of the Department of Justice relating to possible violations of the Federal Election

Campaign Act by the law firm of Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Johnson, P.C., including

its partners, employees, contractors, associates, and their children and spouses.

2. Any and all documents of any kind, including, but not limited to, memoranda,

correspondence and e-mails dated from January 2001 through the present between

(to/from) FEC officials, employees or agents, including former FEC Chairman

Michael E. Toner, and White House officials, employees or agents, including former

White House Aide Karl Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, or

their agents and/or assistants, relating in any way to enforcement of federal criminal

statutes, including, but not limited to, the Federal Election Campaign Act.

(Exhibit A, FOIA Request Dated July 3, 2008).

In an untimely response dated September 30, 2008, Defendant FEC withheld documents in

response to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request No.1, and denied the existence of any documents responsive

to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request No. 2 (Exhibit B, FEC FOIA Response Dated September 30, 2008). 

On October 27, 2008, Plaintiff sent to Defendant Commission a second FOIA request, by and

through his undersigned counsel, seeking documents, memoranda, correspondences, and e-mails of

communications between White House officials and the Federal Election Commission employees

and/or agents including former Commission Chairman Toner (Exhibit C, FOIA Request Dated

October 27, 2008). By letter dated December 3, 2008, Defendant Commission exercised its right

to extend its response time to Plaintiff’s FOIA request until December 17, 2008. Defendant

Commission later requested an additional extension of time in which to respond to Plaintiff’s second

FOIA request. Plaintiff agreed to extend the Commission’s response time until December 31, 2008;

Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 2 of 10
-3-

however, at that date Defendant Commission advised Plaintiff that it was unable to comply fully with

its response deadline. 

On December 31, 2008, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery.

On February 9, 2009, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint challenging Defendant

Commission’s failure to timely comply with both his first and second FOIA requests.

In March 2009, Plaintiff obtained, from an unrelated case pending before the Northern

District of Illinois, a privilege log indicating that the Defendant Commission had in its possession

e-mails dated July 26, 2006, and authored by former Commission Chairman Michael E. Toner to

Sara Taylor (Deputy Assistant to President Bush) and Thomas Josefiak relating to legislative

recommendations by the Justice Department concerning the Federal Election Campaign Act (Exhibit

D, Privilege Log produced in Beam v. Federal Election Commission, Case No. 07-1227 (N.D. Ill.)).

At the time of Mr. Toner’s e-mail referenced in the Commission’s privilege log, Sara Taylor

was the Deputy Assistant to President Bush and reported directly to Karl Rove. Like Toner, Thomas

Josefiak was a former Chairman of the FEC appointed by President Reagan and later served as

General Counsel for the Bush Cheney ‘04 Campaign. At the time of Mr. Toner’s e-mail, Mr.

Josefiak was Chief Counsel to the Republican National Convention.

After the accidental uncovering of the Toner e-mail in question, Plaintiff supplemented his

motion for discovery given that Defendant Commission had denied the existence of this e-mail in

response to Plaintiff’s first FOIA request. In response to Plaintiff’s supplemental filings, Defendant

Commission claimed that the e-mail in question was responsive to Plaintiff’s second FOIA request

and not his first request and thus it was properly withheld from production. This Court disagreed

with Defendant Commission’s contention and concluded that the Toner e-mail was indeed

Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 3 of 10
-4-

responsive to Plaintiff’s first FOIA request and thus should have been produced. See Tr. 30-31,

Hearing April 16, 2009 on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery (“The claim that the

document was not responsive to the second part of the first FOIA request, I think, is very difficult

to defend. I think that the document that was ultimately turned over is responsive to the first request

. . . .”). 

On June 11 and 12, 2009, Defendant Commission advised Plaintiff that it had completed its

production of all non-exempt documents in response to his second FOIA request. Defendant has

now moved for summary judgment claiming that it has adequately searched and produced all nonexempt documents responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests. In support of its motion for summary

judgment, Defendant Commission offers the Declaration of Lawrence Calvert, Jr. who serves as the

Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer of Defendant Commission. Also attached to its motion

for summary judgment, the Commission submits its Vaughn Index identifying those documents, or

portions of documents, withheld from production and the claimed exemption.

II. Standard of Review

A district court reviews de novo an agency’s decisions regarding FOIA requests. 5 U.S.C.

§ 552(a)(4)(B); Jones v. FBI, 41 F.3d 238 (6th Cir. 1994). Although a district court generally

reviews an agency’s affidavits and Vaughn index to determine FOIA compliance, the Sixth Circuit

has recognized that not all FOIA cases are entitled to summary disposition based on an agency’s

affidavits and supporting documents. “This presumption may be overcome where there is evidence

of bad faith in the agency’s handling of the FOIA request” or where there is “evidence of bad faith

or illegality with regard to the underlying activities which generated the documents at issue.” Jones,

41 F.3d at 242-43. Where such circumstances are present, “it would be an abdication of the court’s

Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 4 of 10
-5-

responsibility to treat the case in the standard way and grand summary judgment on the basis of the

Vaughn affidavits alone. It would risk straining the public’s ability to believe – not to mention the

plaintiff’s – that the courts are neutral arbiters of disputes whose procedures are designed to produce

justice out of the clash of adversarial arguments.” Id.

II. Discussion and Analysis

As an initial matter, the Commission contends that Plaintiff Fieger has no standing to

maintain this action because his name did not appear on the FOIA request. The Court should reject

this argument. Although the undersigned counsel was the actual signatory of the FOIA requests, he

did so in a representative capacity as counsel for Plaintiff Fieger. In fact, the request was submitted

on the Fieger Firm letterhead and on which Mr. Fieger’s name obviously appears.

Furthermore, on November 19, 2008, shortly after Plaintiff’s second FOIA request, the

undersigned counsel advised Commission counsel via letter that the undersigned was representing

Mr. Fieger in this matter and “was representing him in a legal capacity at the time of the FOIA

requests.” (Exhibit E). Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint also makes clear that Plaintiff’s FOIA

requests were made by and through his undersigned legal counsel. After receipt of the undersigned’s

letter to Commission counsel, Defendant Commission proceeded to process Plaintiff’s FOIA

requests in its usual fashion and without objection. In this regard, Defendant Commission should

be estopped from now claiming that there was some sort of procedural defect which precludes

Plaintiff Fieger from seeking judicial review in this matter. 

Putting aside Defendant’s procedural objection, the Court should deny Defendant

Commission’s motion for summary judgment because there are questions concerning the adequacy

of the Commission’s search, and because the Commission is stretching the statutory exemptions to

Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 5 of 10
-6-

shield itself from producing documents which may reveal political bias and embarrassment by

Commission officials.

As this Court is aware, Plaintiff has already uncovered at least one e-mail from former

Commission Chairman Toner sent to both Karl Rove’s top aide, Sara Taylor, and counsel to the

Republican National Convention. The e-mail concerns the Justice Department’s recommendations

regarding the enforcement of federal campaign finance laws. Alone, this e-mail reveals at some level

that political considerations were being taken into account by, at least, the former Chairman of the

Federal Election Commission. The e-mail was never produced in response to Plaintiff’s first FOIA

request. Rather, it was accidentally uncovered through an unrelated proceeding from the Northern

District of Illinois. 

After having been caught withholding this document, the Commission contended that it did

not fall within Plaintiff’s first FOIA request. This Court has already flatly rejected such a contention.

In his declaration, Chief Commission FOIA Officer Calvert attempts to explain away the fact that

the agency failed to produce this e-mail. Specifically, Calvert claims that this e-mail was previously

produced to Congress and listed on a privilege log, but that there was “nothing about this or any

other entry on the log [that] indicated that any of the emails described thereon were related to the

enforcement of FECA or any criminal statute[.]” (See Commission’s Motion for Summary

Judgment, Exhibit G, Calvert Declaration, pg. 6, ¶ 12). Calvert makes this claim even thought the

document indicated that it was seeking “comments on legislation.” Id.

Respectfully, the Calvert Declaration only strengthens Plaintiff’s claim regarding the

adequacy of the Commission’s search. Seemingly, the Commission turned a blind eye to a document

which clearly fell within the scope of Plaintiff’s FOIA request. 

Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 6 of 10
-7-

Plaintiff also contests many of the Commission’s claimed exemptions. Most notably, the

Commission has redacted several pages of documents contending that the discussions in such

documents are “purely personal” and thus fall within Exemption 6 (unwarranted invasion of personal

privacy). See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). For example, in pages 671, 672, 845, 870-1007 of its Vaughn

index, the Commission claims exemptions for numerous documents and communications between

Commission and White House officials. The Commission claims that these documents are exempt

under § 552(b)(6) because they are “purely personal.” Plaintiff contests such a broad interpretation

of exemption 6.

The exemption under § 552(b)(6) refers to “personnel and medical files and similar files the

disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy[.]” The

statute does not contemplate, in any fashion, that “purely personal” discussions between government

officials are exempt from disclosure under FOIA.

Seemingly, the Commission wishes to withhold the production of these documents because,

like the Toner e-mail, these documentsreveal political considerations and biases between the White

House, the Federal Election Commission, and in certain instances the Justice Department. These

documents also seem to suggest that certain individuals, including political appointees, were seeking

favors and/or quid pro quo appointments to top government positions. See Bates Nos. 872-880, 898,

973-74, 1007. These are exactly the types of communications that Plaintiff sought in his FOIA

requests and to which the public has a right to discover. Such communications are not the type of

“personnel” or “medical” files exempted from disclosure under § 552(b)(6).

At a minimum, the Court should conduct in camera review of these documents to determine

the legitimacy of such an exemption. “FOIA gives a district court the power to take documents in

Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 7 of 10
-8-

camera. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).” Jones, 41 F.3d at 243. As the Sixth Circuit noted in Jones:

The decision to exercise a court’s discretion to review material in

camera ultimately involves consideration of the following factors: 1)

judicial economy –[]; 2) actual agency bad faith – where it becomes

apparent that the subject matter of a request involves activities which,

if disclosed, would publicly embarrass the agency or that a so-called

“cover up” is presented, government affidavits lose credibility; 3)

strong public interest – where the effect of disclosure or exemption

clearly extends to the public at large, such as a request which may

surface evidence of corruption in an important government function,

there may be a reason to give lesser weight to factors like judicial

economy; 4) the parties request in camera review – obviously the

court cannot be required to conduct a review upon demand, but a

request would ameliorate concern that in camera inspection was

precluding vigorous adversary proceedings or that a court was

stepping into an area, as national security, which is the province of

the Executive. 

Jones, 41 F.3d at 243. 

Here, the Court should exercise its discretion to review, at least, a sampling of the allegedly

exempt documents given that the descriptions of such documents do not purport to fall within the

statutory exemption. Instead, it seems that the Commission is attempting to withhold documents

which reveal inappropriate and perhaps embarrassing communications between officials of the

Commission and the White House, among others. Tie to this the fact that some of the

communications seek comment from high-ranking GOP party members about the enforcement of

campaign finance laws. As the Toner e-mail shows, Mr. Toner wanted Mr. Rove’s and the RNC’s

commentary on “criminal law enforcement responsibilities under the campaign financing laws.”

Why does Mr. Toner, the Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, need the input of Karl

Rove and the Republican National Convention as to “criminal law enforcement responsibilities

under the campaign financing laws[?]” 

Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 8 of 10
-9-

Such communications, having been created and sent on governmental servers using

governmental e-mail accounts, are not shielded from disclosure under Exemption 6. As the Sixth

Circuit emphasized in Jones, “FOIA calls for full disclosure of the activities of federal agencies

‘unless information is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language.’ The exemptions are

to be “narrowly construed,” and the burden is on the defendant ‘agency to demonstrate, not the

requester to disprove, that the materials sought may be withheld due to an exemption.’” Jones, 41

F.3d at 244 (quoting Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 360-61 (1976) and Vaughn v. United

States, 936 F.2d 862, 866(6th Cir. 1991). 

Here, the Commission is broadly construing Exemption 6 in order to shield itself from

producing responsive documents. Because the Commission’s withholding of such documents

violates the Freedom of Information Act, Defendant Commission’s motion for summary judgment

should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

FIEGER, FIEGER, KENNEY & JOHNSON, 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: October 1, 2009

Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 9 of 10
-10-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 1, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the

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

counsel of record in this matter.

s/ Michael R. Dezsi 

MICHAEL R. DEZSI (P64530)

FIEGER, FIEGER, KENNEY, JOHNSON & GIROUX, P.C.

19390 W. Ten Mile Road

Southfield, Michigan 48075

(248) 355-5555

m.dezsi@fiegerlaw.com

Dated: October 1, 2009

Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 10 of 10
INDEX OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit Description

A Plaintiff’s FOIA Letter to FEC dated 7/3/08

B FEC Response letter to Plaintiff dated 9/30/09

C Plaintiff’s FOIA Letter dated 10/27/08 to FEC

Attention: Candace J. Salley

D Federal Election Commission - Privilege Log

E Plaintiff’s (Attorney M. Dezsi) letter dated 11/19/08

Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43-2 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43-3 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43-3 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43-3 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43-4 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43-4 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43-4 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43-4 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 4 of 4
Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43-5 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43-5 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43-6 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43-6 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43-6 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43-7 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43-7 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43-7 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:08-cv-14125-DML-DAS Document 43-7 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 4 of 4