Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Judicial Watch v Dept of the Interior and Dept of the Treasury No 12 170 Complaint 212012

Judicial Watch v Dept of the Interior and Dept of the Treasury No 12 170 Complaint 212012

Judicial Watch v Dept of the Interior and Dept of the Treasury No 12 170 Complaint 212012

Page 1: Judicial Watch v Dept of the Interior and Dept of the Treasury No 12 170 Complaint 212012

Category:General

Number of Pages:6

Date Created:February 2, 2012

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:212012, Interior, Dept, complaint, treasury


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., 
425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800 
Washington, 20024, 
Plaintiff, 
U.S. DEPARTMENT INTERIOR, 
1951 Constitution.Ave., N.W. 
Washington, 20240, 
and 
U.S. DEPARTMENT TREASURY, 
1500 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 
Washington, 20220 
Civil Action No. Case: :12-cv-00170 Assigned To: Howell, Beryl 
Assign. Date 2/1 /2012 Description: FOIA/Privacy Act 

Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. brings this action against Defendants U.S. Department 
Interior ("Interior") and U.S. Department Treasury ("Treasury") compel compliance with the 
Freedom oflnformati.on Act, U.S.C.  552 ("FOIA"). grounds therefor, Plaintiff alleges 
follows: 
JURISDICTION AND VENUE The Couii 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.  139l(e). 
Plaintiff non-profit, educational foundation organized under the laws ofthc 

Distdct Columbia and having its principal place business 425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 
800, Washington, 20024. Plaintiff seeks promote integrity, transparency, and 
accountability government and fidelity the rule oflaw. furtherance its public interest 
mission, Plaintiff regularly requests access the public records federal, state, and local 
govcmmcnt agencjes, entities, and offices, and di8seminates its findings the public. Defendant Interior agency the United States Government and 
headquartered United States Department Interior, 1951 Constitution Ave., N.W., 
Washington, 20240. Defendant has possession, custody, and control records which 
Plaintiff seeks access. Defendant Treasury agency the United States Government and 
headquartered United States Department Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., 
Washint,rt.on, 20220. Defendant has possession, custody, and control records which 
Plaintiff seeks access. 
STATEMENT FACTS October 21, 2011, Plaintiff sent FOIA request the Office the Secretary 
ofDefendant Interior, seeking access the following: Any and all records regarding, concerning related the 
issuance Department Energy loan guarantee SunPower, Inc. and/or NRG Energy, Inc. about September 30, 2011. 
Any and all records communication between any official, 
officer, employee the Department the Interior and any official, officer employee any other govenunent agency, department office regarding, concerning related any loan 
Any and all records communication between any official, officer employee the Department Interior and any officer, employee representative Lang, Hansen, O'Maltey and Miller, government relations firm headquartered Sacramento, CA. 
Any and all records regarding, concerning related the October 14, 2010 visit SunPower's Richmond, production facility Secretary Kenneth Salazar, Rep. George Miller, and others. Also October 21, 2011, Plaintiff sent FOIA request the Director 
Disclosure Services Defendant Treasury, seeking access the following: 

:Any-a:na-all recoras-regarding, concerning 01'-related-tot:he
issuance Department Energy loan guarantee SunPower, 
Inc. and/or NRG Energy, Inc. about September 30, 2011. 
Any and all records communication between any official, officer, employee the Department the Treasury and any official, officer employee any other government agency, department office regarding, concerning related any loan guarantees applied for and/or awarded SunPower, Inc. and/or NRG Energy. 
Any and all records communication between any official, officer employee the Department the Treasury and any officer, employee representative Lang, Hansen, O'Malley and Miller, govenunent relations firm headquartered Sacramento, CA. 

Disclosure Services the component Defendant Treasury that designated Defendant 
Treasury receive FOIA requests. The Office the Secretary, acknowledged receipt Plaintiffs FOIA request 
letter dated October 26, 2011 and assigned No. OS-2012-00036. The letter further stated that 
pursuant C.F.R. 2.13(3), Defendant was taking extension of"IO working days" 
respond Plaintiffs October 21, 2011 request. However, Defendant Interior's acknowledgment letter did not state when Plaintiff could expect receive substantive response its request. 
Because the Office the Secretary Defendant Interior received Plaintiffs October 21, 2011 FOIA request later than October 26, 2011, pmsuant U.S.C.  552(a)(6)(A), U.S.C.  552(a)(6)(B) and C.F.R. 2.13(3) Defendant Interior was required respond Plaintiffs October 21, 2011 FOIA request \thin thirty (30) working days December 12, 2011. 

10. 
Defendant Treasury's Disclosure Services acknowledged receipt Plaintiff's FOIA request letter dated November 2011 and assigned No. 2011-11-005. Defendant 

Treasury's acknowledgment letter stated that Plaintiff's request had been received Defendant Treasury November 2011. The acknowledgment letter further stated, without specifying particular statute regulation, that Defendant Treasury was taking "an additional processing 
extension ten (10) days" respond Plaintiff's October 21, 2011 request. However, Defendant 
Treasury's acknowledgment letter did not state when Plaintiff could expect receive 
substantive response its request. 
11. 
Because the Defendant Treasury's Disclosure Services received Plaintiff's October 21, 2011 FOlA request later than November 2011, pursuant U.S.C.  552(a)(6)(A)(ii) and U.S.C.  552(a)(6)(B), Defendant Treasury was required respond Plaintiffs October 21, 2011 FOIA request within forty (40) working days January 2012. 

12. the date this Complaint) Defendants have failed produce any records responsive Plaintiffs request demonstrate that responsive records are exempt from production. Nor have Defendants indicated whether when any responsive records will 

was being processed, Defendants have fajlcd respond the request any manner. 
13. Because Defendants failed comply with the time limit 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 FOIA request, pursuant .S.C.  552(a)(6)(C). 
COUNT 
(Violation FOi U.S.C.  552) 
14. 
Plaintjff realleges paragraphs through fully slated herein. 

15. 
Defendants are unlawfully withholding records requested Plaintiff pursuant 

16. 
Plaintiff being irreparably harmed reason Defendants' unlawful 

withholding requested records, and Plaintiff continue irreparably harmed unless 
Defendants are compelled conform its conduct the requirements the law. 
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: (1) order Defendants 
conduct search for any and all responsive records Plaintiffs FOIA request and demonstrate 
that employed search methods reasonably likely lead the discovery records responsive 
Plaintifrs FOIA request; (2) order Defendants produce, date certain, any and all 
non-exempt records responsive Plaintiffs FOIA request and Vaughn index any responsive 
records withheld under claim exemption; (3) enjoin Defendants from continuing withhold 
any and all non-exempt records responsive Plaintiff's FOIA request; (4) grant Plaintiff award attorneys' fees and other litigation costs reasonably incuITed this ad.ion pursuant U.S.C. 
 552(a)(4)(E); and (5) grant Plaintiff such other relief the Court deems just and proper. 
D.C. Bar No. 495488 

425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800 
Washington, 20024 

(202) 646-5172 

Attorneys for Plaintiff