Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Hermilla Ltr JW v DOJ Apr 14

Hermilla Ltr JW v DOJ Apr 14

Hermilla Ltr JW v DOJ Apr 14

Page 1: Hermilla Ltr JW v DOJ Apr 14

Category:General

Number of Pages:3

Date Created:April 14, 2011

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:Apr, Hermilla, DOJ


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

U.S. Department Justice 
Civil Rights Division 
Freedom Information/Privacy Acts Branch -NALC 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
Washington, 20530 
NDH:TC 10-00433-F 10-00466-F 
APR 2011 
Mr. Paul Orfanedes, Esq. 
Ms. Julie Axelrod, Esq. 
Judicial Watch 
425 3rd Street, S.W. 
Suite 800 
Washington, D.C. 20024 

Dear Mr. Orfanedes and Ms. Axelrod: 

This further response your Freedom Information Act requests, received the Civil Rights Division August 16, 2010, and September 2010, respectively, seeking access records relating the case United States Sterling, including the November 2009, consent decree but not other pleadings, and other records regarding the qualified organizations that will provide credit counseling, financial literacy and other educational programs, and records funds received those organizations. 
Pursuant the Court's Scheduling Order, Judicial Watch Department Justice, No. 10-1783, dated December 30, 2010:  
Defendant's production responsive documents related United States Sterling and any remaining requested documents that asserts are not exempt from production under FOIA (is due) April 14, 2011. 
Enclosed please find approximately pages responsive documents that the Civil Rights Division providing you the entirety. 
After careful review these responsive documents, have determined that access portions pages documents should denied pursuant U.S.C. 552(b since portion the document contains confidential business information; and since the information outside the scope the request and therefore non-responsive. have further determined that access approximately 104 pages documents should denied pursuant U.S.C. 552(b)(5), since the records consist intra-agency memoranda containing pre-decisional 

deliberative material and attorney work-product; pursuant U.S.C. 552(b)(7) since disclosure thereof could reasonably expected constitute unwarranted invasion personal privacy; and pursuant U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(E) since release would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations prosecutions that could reasonably expected risk circumvention the law. have considered discretionary release the information, and determined that the withheld information not appropriate for disclosure this time. 
After extensive search within the Civil Rights Division, have determined that there are: responsive records "describing, identifying developing guidelines regarding 'qualified organizations' which may receive unspent money from any settlement fund compensate discrimination claims;" hope the Civil Rights Division has been some assistance this matter. 

Nelson illa, Chief 
Freedom Information/Privacy Acts Branch 
Civil Rights Division 

Enclosures