Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Judicial Watch v Department of Transportation Complaint 2292012

Judicial Watch v Department of Transportation Complaint 2292012

Judicial Watch v Department of Transportation Complaint 2292012

Page 1: Judicial Watch v Department of Transportation Complaint 2292012

Category:General

Number of Pages:4

Date Created:February 29, 2012

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:2292012, complaint, department, transportation


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

JUDICIAL WATCH, lNC. 
425 Third Street, SW, Suite 800 
Washington, D.C. 20024 
Plaintiff, 
U.S. DEPARTMENT  
TRANSPORTATION,  
1200 New Jersey Avenue,  
Washington, 20590,  
Defendant.  'J  

COMPLAINT 
Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. brings this action against Defendant U.S. Department 
Transportation ("DOT") compel compliance with the Freedom Information Act, U.S.C.  
552 ("FOIA"). grOlmds lherefor, PlaintilI alleges follows: 
.JURISDICTION AND VENUE The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant .S.C.  552(a)(4)(1:3) and u.s.c.  1331. Venue proper this district pursuant U.S.C.  1391(c). 
PARTIES Plaintiff non-profit, educational foundation organized under the laws the 
District Columbia and having its principal place business 425 Third Street, SW, Suite 800, 
Washington, 20024. Plaintiff seeks promote integrity, transparency, and accountability 
government and fidelity the rule law. furtherance its public interest mission, Plaintiff 
entities, and offices, and disseminates its findings the public. Defendant agency the U.S. Government and headquartered 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, 20590. Defendant has possession, custody, and control 
records which Plaintiff seeks access. 
STATEMENT FACTS January 2012, Plaintiff submitted FOIA request the Federal Railroad 
Administration ("FRA"), component Defendant, facsimile and certified mail, seeking 
access the following public records: 
All documents, communications and correspondence (including electronic email) transmitted between the Federal Railroad Administration and the California High Speed Rail Authority addressing relating the route alternatives under consideration for the proposed California High Speed Rail within Madera County and Merced County, California. FR.A acknowledged receipt Plaintiffs request letter dated January 2012. 
FRA's acknowledgement letter did not state whether detennination comply with the requesl 
had been made. Nor did the letter notify Plaintiff any such determination, the reasons therefor, the right appeal any adverse determination. Pursuant U.S.C.  552(a)(6)(A)(i), .FRA was required determine whether 
comply with Plaintiffs request within twenty (20) working days after its receipt ofthe request and notify Plaintiff immediately its determination, lhe reasons therefor, and the right appeal 
any adverse determination. Accordingly, the FRA's determination was due February 2012 the latest. the date this Complaint, FRA has failed to: (i) determine whether 
comply with Plaintiff's request; (ii) notify Plaintiff any such determination the reasons 
requested records otherwise demonstrate that the requested records are exempt from production. Because FRA failed comply with the time limit set forth U.S.C.  
552(a)(6)(A), Plaintiff deemed have exhausted any and all administrative remedies with 
respect its requests, pursuant U.S.C.  552(a)(6)(C). 
COUNTl 
(Violation FOIA, U.S.C.  552) 
 10. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs through fully stated herein. 
11. Defendant unlawfully wilhholding public records requested Plaintiff pursuant U.S.C.  552. 
12. Plaintiff being irreparably harmed reason Defendant's unlawful withholding the requested public records, and Plaintiff will continue irreparably hanncd 
unless Defendant compelled conform its conduct the requirements the law. 
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: (1) order Defendant 
conduct search for any and all records responsive Plaintiff's FOlA request and demonstrate 
that employed search methods reasonably likely lead the discovery ofrecords responsive 
Plaintiffs FOIA request; (2) order Defendant produce, date certain, any and all non-exempt 
records responsive Plaintiff's FOfA request and Vaughn index any responsive records 
withheld under claim exemption; (3) enjoin Defendant from continuing withhold any and all 
non-exempt records responsive Plaintiff's FOlA request; (4) grant Plaintiff award 
attorneys' fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred this action pursuant U.S.C.  
552(a)(4)(E); and (5) grant Plaintiff such other relief a the Court deems just and proper. 

D.C. Bar No. 429716 

David Rothstein 
D.C. Bar No. 450035 

425 Thi.rd Street, S.W., Suite 800 
Washington, 20024 

(202) 646-5172 

Attorneys for Plaintiff