RAL PH SC HOENMAN ,

Plaintiff,
v.
FED ERALBU REAU OF I NVESTI GATI ON, e t al

. , De fe nd ants . UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

Civil Action No. 04-2202 ( CKK)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION (Nove mber 9, 2009) This case comes be fore the Court upon the filing of a “ Motion to Enforce Consent De c re e , M oti on

fo r R e c on sid e ratio n E n B anc , M oti on to I nte rv e ne a s Pla int if

f u nd e r R ule 24(a) (2) a nd Rule 24(b)(2) ,” filed by J onathan L ee Riche s, a fe dera l inmate incar cer ated at the Fe dera l Medical Center

in L exington, Kentucky . Mr. Riches, re prese nting himself pro s e , c onte nd s th at he is e nti tle d to int e rv e ne a s a matte r o f r ig ht p ur su ant t o F e de ra l Ru le of Civ il Procedur e (“ Rule”) 24( a) or , alternatively , that he mee ts the require ments for pe rmissive intervention pursua

nt to Rul e 24(b) . In addition, as the ca ption of the motion sugg ests, Mr. Riches also moves for

rec onsideration en ba

nc and to e nforc e a c onsent dec ree . Both Plaintiff and De fenda

nts oppose Mr. Riches’ motion and have filed a joint opposi tion to that effec t. B a se d u po n a se arc hin gre vie w o f M r. Ric he s’ [120 ] Mot ion , Pl a int if f’ s a nd De fe nd ants ’ [121] J oint Oppositi on and the attachments there to, the rele vant leg al authority , and the r ecor d of this case a s a whole, the Court shall DENY Mr. Riche s’ [120] Motion to Enforce Consent De c re e , M oti on

fo r R e c on sid e ratio n E n B anc , M oti on to I nte rv e ne a s Pla int if

f u nd e r R uleSpecifica lly , Plaintiff’s Complaint also named as De fenda nts: the Central Intellige nce 1 Ag ency , the Def

ense I ntellige nce A g ency , the Depa rtment of the Air

For ce, the Depa

rtment of J ustice, the De partment of the Army , the Depa rtment of the Na

vy , the Depa

rtment of State, the National Ar chives a

nd Records A dminist ration, the National Security Ag ency , and John Doe Ag encie s 1-10. Compl. at 1 & ¶ 13.
2 24(a) (2) a nd Rule 24(b)(2) , for the r easons that f ollow. I. BACKG ROUND The Court assumes f

amiliarity with, and shall not repe at her ein, the fa ctual bac kg round of this case, whic h has bee n extensively discussed by

this Court i n its previous decisions reg arding the par ties’ var ious cross-motions for summary judgme nt. See, e .g., Schoenm an v. FBI , 6 04 F. Sup p. 2d 17 4 ( D. D. C. 2 00 9) ; Schoenm an v. FBI , 5 73 F . Su

pp . 2 d 1 19 (D .D .C. 20 09 ); Schoenm an v. FBI , 6 04 F . Su

pp . 2 d 1 74 (D .D .C. 20 08 ); Schoenm an v. FBI , 5 75 F . Su

pp . 2 d 1 36 (D .D .C. 2008). F or the purpose s of the instant Memora ndum Opinion, it i s sufficient to note that the above- captioned c ivil action was filed ne arly five year s ag o by

Plaintiff, Ralph Schoenman, a political activist and author, pur suant to the Fr eedom of Information Ac t (“F OIA”) , 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privac y

Act of 1974 ( “Privac y

Act” or “PA”) , 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Plainti ff se eks
a c c e ss t o a

n a rr ay of re c or ds pe rt a ini ngto h ims e lf , L or d B e rt

ra nd Rus se ll, and

six or g anizatio ns , from a total of

ten diffe rent named ag encie s — including, a s is releva nt to the instant Memorandum Opinion, the F eder al B urea u of Investig ation (“F BI ”) — a nd a number

of
unname d a g e nc ie s to wh ic h th e name d a g e nc ie s mi g ht r e fe r d oc ume nts fo r a de te rm inatio n a s to
r e l e a s a b i l i ty. 1 Now pendingbefor e the Court is Mr. Riches’ [120] Mot ion to Enforce Consent Decr ee, Motion for Reconsider ation En Ba nc, Motion to I nterve ne as Plaintiff unde r Rule 24(a )(2) and Rule 24(b)(2) , (her einaf

ter, “ Motion to I nterve ne”) . Acc ordingto Mr. Riches, he is a “ formerAs indicated by Plaintiff and Def

endants in their joint opposition, i t appea rs that Mr. 2 Riches re gularly

attempts to intervene in f eder al ca ses ac ross the country
. SeePl. & De fs .’ Jt. Opp’n, Doc ket No. [121] , at 1, n.1. 3 CI A ag ent with the FB Iin their cy ber c omputer sec urity

division where [he] was underc over g lobally to stop computer hac kers a nd identify

thieves.” SeeMot. to I nterve ne, Doc ket No. [1 2 0 ]. He a lso c la ims to h ave wo rk e d w iththe Pla int if f “ in S ili c on

Va lle y . . . f ro m 19 99 to 2 2001 building def

ense f irewa lls and email traps a nd preve nting Tr ojan horses f rom infiltrating computer te rminals for the G overnme nt,” id. , althoug h Plaintiff himself has submitted a statement deny

ing a ny knowledg e of or

contac t with Mr. Riches, see Pl. & Def s.’ J t. Opp’n, Docke t No. [121] . As set forth in his motion, Mr. Riches claims that he has e vidence demonstratingthat the FB Ihas improper ly withheld cer

tain documents in this case a nd there fore seeks to interve ne in this civil action, either a s a matter of rig ht pursuant to Rule 24(a) (2) or , alternatively , by

permission pursuant to Rule 24(b). Id. Mr. Riches also purpor ts to move for “re considera

tion en banc” and to enf

orce “this Court’s consent dec ree ,” althoug h he neither specifie s the particula

r orde r he se eks to cha lleng e nor ide ntifies the alleg ed “c onsent dec ree ” he seeks to enf

orce . See id. Pla int if f a nd De fe nd ants have fi le d a

Joint Op po sit ion

to M r. Ric he s’ Mo tio n to Interve ne. SeePl. & Def

s.’ J t. Opp’n, Doc ket No. [121] . Mr. Riches dec lined to file any reply
. Acc ording ly , the third-par ty Motion to I nterve ne is now ripe f or the Court’s re solution and revie w. II. LEGAL STANDARDS As explained above, Mr . Riches has moved f or interve ntion pursuant to Rule 24, which allows intervention under two standards: interve ntion of rig ht and per missive intervention. F ED .4

R. C IV . P. 24(a)- (b). F irst, the Rule permits intervention of right when, inte r a lia , the applica nt

“ c la ims an inte re st r e latin gto t he pr op e rt

y or tr ans a c tio n th at is the su

bje c t of the a c tio n, and

is s o situated that disposing of the action may as a pr actica l matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existi ngparties a dequate ly repr esent that intere st.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 24(a)( 2). As explained by the D.C. Circuit, to qualify for a n intervention of r ight unde r Rul e 24 (a )( 2) , th e fo llo wi ngfo ur fa c tor s mu st b e me t: (1) the timeliness of the m otion; (2) whether the applicant “claims an intere st relating to the proper

ty or transa ction which is the su b j ec t o f t he ac tion”; (3) whe ther “ the applicant is so situated that the disposit i o n o f the a ction may as a pr actica l matter impair or impede the applicant’ s ability to protect that intere st”; and (4) whether “the applicant’ s interest is adequately repr esente d by

exis ting pa

rties.” Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton , 3 2 2 F. 3 d 7 2 8 , 7 3 1 (D
. C
. C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( qu o t i n g Mova Pharm

. Cor p. v . S ha lal a , 1 40 F .3 d 1 06 0, 10 74 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 8) ) ; see also U.S. v . Phillip Morris USA, Inc. , 566 F.3d 1095, 1146 ( D.C. Cir. 2009). “Rule 24(a ) ‘impliedly ref ers not to any

interest the applicant c an put forw ard, but only to a leg ally

protec table one.” Mova Pharm . Corp. , 140 F.3d at1 0 7 4 (qu o t i n g S. Chr ist ian Le ad e rsh ip C on fe re nc e v . Ke lly , 747 F.2d 777, 779 ( D.C. Cir. 19 84 )) . A c c or din g ly , in

thi s Ci rc uit , “ a

pa rt y se e kin gto i nte rv e ne a s o f r ig ht m us t de mon str ate that it has standing unde r Article I I Iof the Constituti on.” Fu nd for An im als , 322 F.3d at 731-32. Second, the Rule provide s that a Court may g rant a n applicant pe rmission to i nterve ne wh o e ith e r: “ (A ) i s g ive n a c on dit ion a l r ig ht t o inte rv e ne by a fe de ra l st atut e ; or

(B ) h a s a c la im or def ense that shares w ith the main action a c ommon question of law or fa ct.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 24(b)( 1). In consideringa motion for per missive intervention, a cour t must also “consider wh e the r t he int e rv e nti on

wi ll und uly de lay or pr e jud ic e the a dju dic atio n o f t he or ig ina l pa

rt ie s’ rig hts.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 24(b)(3). “ [P ]ermissive intervention is an inhere ntly discretionar

y5

enter prise,” E.E.O.C. v. Nat’l Children’s Ctr., Inc. , 146 F.3d 10423, 1046 ( D.C. Cir. 1998), and “the c ourt enjoy s considera ble discre tion under Rule 24(b),” En v tl. De f. v . Le av itt , 329 F. Supp. 2d 55, 66 (D.D.C. 2004). III . D ISC USS ION Th e Court

c on c lud e s th at Mr . Ri c he s is no t e nti tle d to int e rv e ne un de r e ith e r R ule 24(a) (2) or

Rule 24(b). F irst, Mr. Riches has not demonstrated that he is entitled to intervene as a matter of rig ht under Rule 24(a )(2) . His motion comes near ly five year s after

the above
captioned suit wa s filed. He ha s not set forth any specific interest with re spect to the instant F OIA a c tio n n or

ha s h e e xpla ine d h owdis po sit ion of the ins tant a c tio n ma

y imp e de his a

bil ity to protec t any

specific interest of his own. Rathe r, Mr. Riches se eks to intervene only to provide
e vid e nc e that he c la ims wo uld de mon str ate that th e F B Iha s im pr op e rl y wi thh e ld c e rt a in documents fr om Plainti ff. See Mot. to I nterve ne. He does not explain what this evidence is or ho w i t w a s o bta ine d. Mo re ov e r, it i s r e a dil y a pp are nt t hat Mr . Ri c he s’ a lle g e d inte re st i n ensuringthat the FB Ifully discloses all documents re sponsive to Plainti ff’ s FOIA re quest is an interest alr eady

adequa tely repr esente d by

Plaintiff himself. Finally , Mr. Riches has ma de no
e ff or t to de mon str ate that he ha s st and ingun de r Art ic le I I I , a s is re qu ir e d und e r D .C. Cir c uit pr e c e de nt. Ac c or din g ly , th e Court sh a ll D EN Y M r. Ric he s’ mot ion to t he e xtent he se e ks to intervene as a matter of r ight in this liti g ation. Second, the Court finds that Mr. Riche s has also fa iled to demonstrate that he has met the threshold re quirements nec essar y for pe rmissive intervention under Rule 24(b). He has not cited to any rele vant fe dera l statute that provides him a conditional rig ht to intervene in this case nor has he indicated that he ha s a cla im or defe nse that involves a c ommon question of law or fa ct.6

Moreove r, in light of the parties’ joint opposi tion to Mr. Ri ches’ motion and the untimely nature of his re qu e st t o inte rv e ne , th e Court fi nd s th at pe rm itt ingint e rv e nti on at th is l ate sta g e wo uld likely lead to undue de lay

and pre judice the or igina l parties’ r ights. Ac cording ly , in exercising its “considera

ble discre tion under Rule 24(b),” the Court shall DENY Mr. Riche s’ motion to the extent he seeks per

missive intervention. Finally , in light of the Court’s de cision above de nying Mr . Riches’ re quest to intervene , the Court shall also DENY Mr . Riches’ motion to the ext ent he pur ports to move for
rec onsideration en ba

nc and to e nforc e a c onsent dec ree . As noted above , Mr. Riches make s no eff orts to specify

the par ticular orde r he intends to cha lleng e nor doe s he identify the alleg ed “conse nt decr ee” he see ks to enforc e. See id. Reg ardle ss, his requests for r econside ration and
e nf or c e me nt m

us t be de nie d in

light o f t he Court ’s fi nd inga

bo ve that he is n ot e nti tle d to intervene . Acc ording ly , Mr. Riches’ [120] Mot ion to Enforce Consent Decr ee, Motion for Reconsider ation En Ba

nc, Motion to I nterve ne as Plaintiff unde r Rule 24(a )(2) and Rule 24(b) (2) i s D E N IE D i ni t s e n t i r e ty. IV . C ON CL USI ON F or the re a so ns se t f

or th a bo ve , th e Court

sh a ll D EN Y M r. Ric he s’ [120 ] Mot ion to Enforc e Consent Dec ree , Motion for Reconsider ation En Ba nc, Motion to Interve ne as Plaintiff under Rule 24( a)( 2) and Rule 24( b)(2) . An appr opriate O rder acc ompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: November

9, 2009 /s/ C O LLE E N K O LLA R
- K O T E LLY Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge