Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Judicial Watch v CIA – Case 1 09-cv-01352

Judicial Watch v CIA – Case 1 09-cv-01352

Judicial Watch v CIA – Case 1 09-cv-01352

Page 1: Judicial Watch v CIA – Case 1 09-cv-01352

Category:Lawsuit

Number of Pages:5

Date Created:July 21, 2009

Date Uploaded to the Library:December 12, 2014

Tags:Torture, Terrorism, CIA


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA 

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,  
501 School Street, S.W., Suite 700  
Washington, 20024,  
Plaintiff,  Civil Action No.  
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY  
Office General Counsel  
Washington, 20505,  
Defendant.  

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND 
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

Plaintiff, Judicial Watch, Inc., brings this action against Defendant Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") compel compliance with the Freedom Information Act, U.S.C.  552 ("FOIA"). grounds therefor, Plaintiff alleges follows: 
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 
The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant U.S.C.  552(a)(4)(B) and U.S.C.  1331. Venue proper this district pursuant U.S.C.  1391(e). 
PARTIES Plaintiff non-profit, educational foundation organized under the laws the District Columbia and having its principal place business 501 School Street, S.W., Suite 700, Washington, 20024. Plaintiff seeks promote integrity, transparency, and accountability government and fidelity the rule law. furtherance its public interest 
mission, Plaintiff regularly serves FOIA requests federal, state, and local government 
agencies, entities, and offices, and disseminates its findings the public. Defendant agency the United States Government and headquartered 
Central Intelligence Agency, General Counsel's Office, Washington, 20505. Defendant has 
possession, custody, and control records which Plaintiff seeks access. 
STATEMENT FACTS May 15, 2009, Plaintiff sent FOIA request Defendant seeking access 
the following records: 
(1) 
Records detailing dates when the CIA briefed congressional leaders (to include, but not limited Rep. Nancy Pelosi and/or her aide, Michael Sheehy) matters relating "enhanced intenogation techniques" and/or "harsh intenogation techniques" and suspected and/or known tenorists. 

(2) 
Briefing materials presented Rep. Nancy Pelosi and/or her aide, Michael Sheehy, relating "enhanced intenogation techniques" and/or "harsh interrogation techniques" and suspected and/or known tenorists. 

(3) 
Records detailing the names all Members Congress (and/or Congressional Aides) briefed "enhanced interrogation techniques" and/or "harsh interrogation techniques" and suspected and/or known tenorists. 

(4) 
Records and briefing materials from reported September 4,2002 briefing Rep. Nancy Pelosi (and/or her aide Michael Sheehy) concerning waterboarding detainees. Records detailing all instances when the CIA has provided briefings Members Congress under the provisions the National Security Act from September 11, 2001 present. Pursuant U.S.C.  552(a)(6)(A)(i), Defendant was required determine 

whether comply with Plaintiff's May 15, 2009 FOIA request within twenty (20) working days June 15, 2009. 
Defendant failed determine whether would comply with Plaintiff's May 15, 2009 FOIA request within the time period required law. letter dated June 23, 2009, Defendant acknowledged receipt Plaintiff's May 15, 2009 FOIA request. Defendant's June 23, 2009 letter stated that was unlikely Defendant could respond the request within twenty (20) working days, but failed state when determination the request would made otherwise invoke the extension time provision set forth U.S.C.  552(a)(6)(B). Defendant's June 23, 2009 letter also included the following statement: 

You have the right consider our honest appraisal denial your request and 
you may appeal the Agency Release Panel. more practical approach would 
permit continue processing your request and respond you soon 
can. You will retain your appeal rights and, once you receive the results our 
search, can appeal that time you wish. will proceed that basis unless 
you object. 
Defendant's statement not adverse determination within the meaning U.S.C.  552(a)(6)(A), and, therefore, administrative appeal any adverse determination was necessary possible. Because Defendant failed comply with the time limits set forth U.S.C.  552(a)(6)(A) and U.S.C.  552(a)(6)(B), Plaintiff deemed have exhausted any and all administrative remedies with respect its May 15, 2009 FOIA request, pursuant U.S.C.  552(a)(6)(C). 
COUNTl (Violation FOIA) 
10. Plaintiffrealleges paragraphs through fully stated herein. 
11. 
Defendant has violated FOIA failing produce any and all non-exempt records responsive Plaintiffs May 15, 2009 request within the time limits required U.S.C.  552(a)(6)(A) and U.S.C.  552(a)(6)(B). 

12. 
Plaintiff being irreparably harmed reason ofDefendant's violation ofFOIA, and Plaintiff will continue irreparably harmed unless Defendant compelled conform its conduct the requirements the law. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: (1) declare Defendant's failure comply with FOIA unlawful; (2) order Defendant search for and produce any and all non-exempt records responsive Plaintiffs May 15, 2009 request and Vaughn index allegedly exempt records responsive the request date ce1iain; (3) enjoin Defendant from continuing withhold any and all non-exempt records responsive the request; 
(4) grant Plaintiff award attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred this action pursuant U.S.C.  552(a)(4)(E); and (5) grant Plaintiff such other relief the Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: July 21, 2009 Respectfully submitted, JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 
D.C. Bar No. 429716 

David Rothstein 
D.C. Bar No. 450035 
Suite 700 
501 School Street, S.W. 
Washington, 20024 

(202) 646-5172 

Attorneys for Plaintiff