Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/97435841/STAMPED-Complaint6-18
Timestamp: 2015-04-26 10:15:32
Document Index: 736011380

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552']

STAMPED Complaint6 18
P. 1STAMPED Complaint6 18STAMPED Complaint6 18Ratings: (0)|Views: 197|Likes: 3Published by Judicial Watch, Inc.More info:Published by: Judicial Watch, Inc. on Jun 18, 2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.This book can be read on up to 6 mobile devices.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/97435841/STAMPED-Complaint6-1801/25/2013pdftextoriginal IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. )425 Third Street, SW, Suite 800 )Washington, D.C. 20024, ))Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No.)v. ))BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, )FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES )99 New York Ave., NE )Washington, DC 20226, ))Defendant. )___________________________________ )
Plaintiff, Judicial Watch, Inc., brings this action against Defendant Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to compel compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, 5U.S.C. § 552 (
). As grounds therefor, Plaintiff alleges as follows:
1. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and28 U.S.C. § 1331.2. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).
3. Plaintiff is a non-profit, educational foundation organized under the laws of theDistrict of Columbia and having its principal place of business at 425 Third Street, S.W., Suite800, Washington, DC 20024. Plaintiff seeks to promote integrity, transparency, andaccountability in government and fidelity to the rule of law. In furtherance of its public interest
Case 1:12-cv-00921 Document 1 Filed 06/06/12 Page 1 of 4
2mission, Plaintiff regularly requests access to the public records of federal, state, and localgovernment agencies, entities, and offices, and disseminates its findings to the public.4. Defendant is an agency of the U.S. Government and is headquartered at 99 NewYork Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20226. Defendant has possession, custody, and control of records to which Plaintiff seeks access.
5. On July 22, 2011, Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to Defendant, by facsimileand certified mail, seeking access to the following public records:All records of communication between any official, officer or employee of theBureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and
Kevin M. O’Reilly, a
current or former employee of the U.S. Department of State currently or previouslyserving as Director of North American Affairs at the U.S. National SecurityCouncil.The timeframe for the request was identified as January 1, 2009 through July 27, 2011.6. Defendant acknowledged rece
ipt of Plaintiff’s F
OIA request on August 2, 2011and assigned the request case number 11-1049. The acknowledgement letter stated that Plaintiff could “expect to receive an answer by August 26, 2011.”
7. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i), Defendant was required to determine
whether to comply with Plaintiff’s request within twenty (20) working days after receipt of the
request and to notify Plaintiff immediately of its determination, the reasons therefor, and the rightto appeal any adverse determination. Because Plaintiff sent its request to the component of Defendant designated by Defendant to receive FOIA requests, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)this twenty (20) working day time period did not commence until ten (10) working days afterDefend
ant’s recei
pt of the request on August 2, 2011
. Accordingly, Defendant’s dete
rminationwas due by September 14, 2011 at the latest.
Case 1:12-cv-00921 Document 1 Filed 06/06/12 Page 2 of 4
38. As of the date of this Complaint, Defendant has failed to: (i) determine whether to
comply with Plaintiff’s requests; (
ii) notify Plaintiff of any such determination or the reasonstherefor; (iii) advise Plaintiff of the right to appeal any adverse determination; or (iv) produce therequested records or otherwise demonstrate that the requested records are exempt from production.9. Because Defendant has failed to comply with the time limit set forth in 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(6)(A), Plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted any and all administrative remedies withrespect to its requests, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C).
COUNT 1(Violation of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552)
10. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 9 as if fully stated herein.11. Defendant is unlawfully withholding records requested by Plaintiff pursuant to5 U.S.C. § 552.12. Plaintiff is being irreparably harmed by reason of Defendant
s unlawfulwithholding of requested records, and Plaintiff will continue to be irreparably harmed unlessDefendant is compelled to conform its conduct to the requirements of the law.WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: (1) order Defendant toconduct a search for any and all responsive records to
Plaintiff’s July 22
, 2011 FOIA request anddemonstrate that it employed search methods reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of recordsresponsive to Plaint
FOIA request; (2) order Defendant to produce, by a date certain, any andall non-exempt records responsive to
FOIA request and a
index of anyresponsive records withheld under claim of exemption; (3) enjoin Defendant from continuing towithhold any and all non-exempt records responsive to
FOIA request; (4) grant Plaintiff an award of attorney
fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in this action pursuant to
Case 1:12-cv-00921 Document 1 Filed 06/06/12 Page 3 of 4
Activity (5)FiltersAdd to collectionReview Add NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 hundred reads1 thousand readsliveclive304393 liked thisScottGiordanoEsq liked thisMelvin Swanson liked thisLoad more