Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Judicial Watch v US Navy No 12 172 Complaint 212012

Judicial Watch v US Navy No 12 172 Complaint 212012

Judicial Watch v US Navy No 12 172 Complaint 212012

Page 1: Judicial Watch v US Navy No 12 172 Complaint 212012

Category:General

Number of Pages:5

Date Created:February 2, 2012

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:212012, Navy, complaint


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, 
DEPARTMENT THE VY, )2000 Navy Pentagon )Washington, 20350-2000,
Defendant. 
COMPLAINT 
Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. brings this action against Defendant Department the Navy compel compliance with the Freedom Information Act, U.S.C.  552 ("FOIN'). 
grounds therefor, Plaintiff alleges follows: 
JURISDICTION AND VENUE The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant U.S.C.  552(a)(4)(B) and .s.c.  1331. Venue proper this district pursuant U.S.C.  1391(e). 

PARTIES Plaintiff non-profit, education foundation organized llllder the laws the 
District 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 

government agencies, entities, and offices, and disseminates its findings the public. Defendant agency the United States Government and headquartered 
Department the Navy, 2000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, 20350-2000. Defendant has 
possession, custody, and control records which Plaintiff seeks access. 
STATEMENT FACTS October 21, 2011, Plaintiff sent FOIA request Defendant, seeking access 
the following: 
Any and all records regarding concerning related the 
OOG8 firrn-fixed-priG-taslH>feer awarded to-mll'-0wer, 
Inc. September 30, 2011 (ref. Contract Number 
N62583-10-D-0030, Task Order 0002). 
Any and all records conununication between any officjal, officer employee the Department the Navy and any official 
officer employee any other government agency, department office regarding, concerning related 1.he aforementioned task order. Any and all records communications between any 
official, officer employee the Department the Navy and any officer, employee representative Lang, Hansen, O'Malley and Miller, government relations firm headquartered Sacramento, CA. Defendant acknowledged receipt Plaintiff's FOIA request letter dated 
October 25, 2011 and assigned the request No. 2012Fl00121. However, Defendant's 
acknowledgment letter did not state when Plaintiff could expect receive substantive response its request. Plaintiff subsequently received second letter from Defendant dated October 27, 
2011 stating that Plaintiff's request had been redirected the Naval Facilities Engineering 
2011 letter also did nol state when Plaintiff could expect receive substantive response its 
request. Plaintiff subsequently received third letter from Defendant dated November 
2011 stating that Plaintiffs request had also been assigned No. 2012Fl 10143. However, 
Defendant's November 2011 letter also did not state when Plaintiff could expect receive complete response its October 21, 2011 FOIA request. Plaintiffsubsequently received fourth letter from Defendant dated November 
2011 stating that Plaintifrs request had been redirected the Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command Port Hueneme, component Defendant. Towever, Defendant's November 
2011 letter also did not state when Plaintiffcould expect receive substantive response its 
request. 
10. Pursuant U.S.C.  552(a)(6)(A), Defendant was required respond 
Plaintiff's fOJA request within twenty (20) worlcing days December 2011. the date this Complaint, Defendant has failed produce any records 
responsive Plaintiffs request demonstrate that responsive records are exempt from 
production. Nor has indicated whether when any responsive records will produced. 
Other than acknowledge receipt the request and inform Plaintiff that its request was being 
processed, Defendant has failed respond the request any manner. 
12. Because Defendant 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 fOTA request, pursuant U.S.C.  552(a)(6)(C). 
COUNTt 
(Violation FOIA, U.S.C.  552) 
13. 
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs through fully stated herein. 

14. 
Defendant lllllawfully withholding records requested Plaintiff pursuant U.S.C.  552. 
15. Plaintiffis being irreparably harmed reason Defendant's unlawful 
withholding requested records, and Plaintiff will continue irreparably harmed unless 
Defendant compelled conform its conduct the requirements the law. 
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: (1) order Defendant 
------oonilttet-a-seareh-for any and all responsive records 

that employed search methods reasonably likely lead the discovery records responsive 
Plaintiffs FOIA request; (2) order Defendant produce, date certain, any and all non-exempt 
records responsive Plaintiff's FOIA request and Vaughn index any responsive records 
withheld under claim exemption; (3) enjoin Defendant from continuing withhold any and all 
non-exempt records responsive Plaintiffs FOlA request; (4) grant Plaintiff award 
attorneys' fees and other litigation costs reasonably incuned this action pursuant U.S.C.  
552(a)( 4)(E); and (5) grant Plaintiff such other relief the Court deems just and proper. 
JUDTClAL INC. 

Attorneys for Plain tiff