JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-4369202) filed by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons)(Burke, Lauren)

Case 1:16-cv-00018 Document 1 Filed 01/06/16 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,
425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20024,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
)
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
)
Washington, DC 20530-0001,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. brings this action against Defendant U.S. Department of
Justice to compel compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (“FOIA”).
As grounds therefor, Plaintiff alleges as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)

and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
2.

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).
PARTIES

3.

Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. is a not-for-profit, educational organization that

seeks to promote transparency, integrity, and accountability in government and fidelity to the
rule of law. As part of its educational mission, Plaintiff regularly requests records under FOIA,
analyzes the responses and any records it receives, and disseminates its findings and the records
to the American public to inform them about “what their government is up to.” U.S. Dep’t of

Case 1:16-cv-00018 Document 1 Filed 01/06/16 Page 2 of 4

Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 795 (1989). Plaintiff is
incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia and is headquartered at 425 Third Street
SW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20024.
4.

Defendant U.S. Department of Justice is an agency of the United States

Government. Defendant has possession, custody, and control of records to which Plaintiff seeks
access. Defendant is headquartered at U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
5.

On November 25, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the Federal Bureau

of Investigation (“FBI”), a component of Defendant, seeking the following:
Any and all records concerning, regarding, or relating to a
deceased individual, former Venezuelan President Hugo
Chavez. Chavez was born on July 28, 1954 in Sabeneta,
Barinas and died on March 5, 2013. As proof of death, I have
enclosed a copy of the New York Times obituary of Hugo
Chavez.
The request was submitted online via the FBI’s eFOIA system and, when the eFOIA system did
not appear to be working properly, by follow-up email on November 30, 2015.
6.

By letter dated December 4, 2015, Defendant acknowledged receiving Plaintiff’s

request via the FBI’s eFOIA system and advised Plaintiff that the request had been assigned
FOIPA Request No. 1340232-000.
7.

As of the date of this Complaint, Defendant has failed to: (i) produce the

requested records or demonstrate that the requested records are lawfully exempt from
production; (ii) notify Plaintiff of the scope of any responsive records Defendant intends to
produce or withhold and the reasons for any withholdings; or (iii) inform Plaintiff that it may
appeal any adequately specific, adverse determination.
-2-

Case 1:16-cv-00018 Document 1 Filed 01/06/16 Page 3 of 4

COUNT I
(Violation of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552)
8.

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 7 as if fully stated herein.

9.

Defendant is violating FOIA by failing to search for and produce all records

responsive to Plaintiff’s request or demonstrate that the requested records are lawfully exempt
from production.
10.

Plaintiff is being irreparably harmed by reason of Defendant’s violation of FOIA,

and Plaintiff will continue to be irreparably harmed unless Defendant is compelled to comply
with FOIA.
11.

To trigger FOIA’s administrative exhaustion requirement, Defendant was

required to determine whether to comply with Plaintiff’s request within twenty (20) working
days of receiving the request via eFOIA on November 25, 2015. Accordingly, Defendant’s
determination was due on on or about December 24, 2015. At a minimum, Defendant was
required to: (i) gather and review the requested documents; (ii) determine and communicate to
Plaintiff the scope of any responsive records Defendant intended to produce or withhold and the
reasons for any withholdings; and (iii) inform Plaintiff that it may appeal any adequately
specific, adverse determination. See, e.g., Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
v. Federal Election Commission, 711 F.3d 180, 188-89 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
12.

Because Defendant failed to determine whether to comply with Plaintiff’s request

within the time period required by FOIA, Plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted its administrative
appeal remedies. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: (1) order Defendant to
search for any and all records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request and demonstrate that it
employed search methods reasonably calculated to uncover all records responsive to the request;
-3-

Case 1:16-cv-00018 Document 1 Filed 01/06/16 Page 4 of 4

(2) order Defendant to produce, by a date certain, any and all non-exempt records responsive to
Plaintiff’s FOIA request and a Vaughn index of any responsive records withheld under claim of
exemption; (3) enjoin Defendant from continuing to withhold any and all non-exempt records
responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request; (4) grant Plaintiff an award of attorneys’ fees and other
litigation costs reasonably incurred in this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E); and (5)
grant Plaintiff such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: January 6, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Lauren M. Burke
Lauren M. Burke
D.C. Bar No. 1028811
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20024
[phone]
Counsel for Plaintiff

-4-