Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/47754797/Appellant-McKinley-Opening-Brief-Appellee-Board-of-Governors-US-Ct-of-Appeals-DC-Lawsuit-1
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:40:55+00:00

Document:
McKinley v. FDIC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103045 (D.D.C. 2009).
meaning of Local R. 28(a)(1)(C).
* Dudman Communications Corporation v.
Bear Stearns The Bear Stearns Companies Inc.
on October 19, 2010. JA 147.
privilege of FOIA Exemption 5.
funding to Bear Stearns through an arrangement with JPMorgan Chase.” Id.
evidence it considered or how it analyzed this evidence.
McKinley submitted a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request to the Board.
of the Board’s claims of FOIA Exemptions 4, 5, and 8. Id. at 6 (JA 125).
financial stability’ as described in the meeting minutes” released on June 27, 2008.
The Board also has failed to show that the withheld material is deliberative.
evidence. The Board therefore has failed to satisfy its burden.
that FOIA exemptions must be narrowly construed.
produce all responsive material to McKinley.
requirement of FOIA Exemption 5.
makeshift position unsupported by the law of this Circuit.
“function just as an employee would be expected to do.” Id.
different from those of the Board.
Board, final decision making authority.
best for FRBNY. Id at 11 (JA 130).
extend a loan is not contained in the functions delegated to Federal Reserve Banks.
See 56 C.F.R. § 265.11.
agency’s deliberative process.” Id. at 681 (internal citations omitted).
Once again, the Board has not presented any evidence to satisfy its burden.
any evidence that the communication was created at the request of the Board.
Board for the purpose of aiding its deliberative process.
to Bear Stearns’ funding difficulties.
for advice. Nor does the passage assert that FRBNY provided advice to the Board.
invoke the deliberative process privilege of FOIA Exemption 5.
(D.C. Cir. 2005). Starting in 1987 with Dudman Communications Corporation v.
Telephone and Telegraph Company, 642 F.2d 1285, 1297 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
demonstrates that disclosure of the material would harm its deliberative process.
ability to perform its functions.
fact/opinion test.” Wolfe, 839 F.2d at 774; Petroleum Information Corporation v.
Reports as to Invoke FOIA Exemption 8.
pursuant to the deliberative process privilege.
they apply.” King v. United States Department of Justice, 830 F.2d 210, 219 (D.C.
FOIA Exemption 8 assertion is not sufficient.
Yet, the Board did just that when it attempted to invoke FOIA Exemption 8.
condition reports.” Declaration of Alison Thro at ¶ 17 (JA 36-37).
re: Franklin National Bank Securities Litigation, 478 F. Supp. 577, 579 (E.D.N.Y.
“Reports of Examination” generated as part of that process).
the dominant objective of the Act.” Department of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S.
any and all communicated financial information.
must produce all responsive material to McKinley.

References: v. 
 v.

 § 265
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.