Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!

DONATE

Judicial Watch • JW v IRS 1759 oppo to summary

JW v IRS 1759 oppo to summary

JW v IRS 1759 oppo to summary

Page 1: JW v IRS 1759 oppo to summary

Category:Legal Document

Number of Pages:48

Date Created:April 14, 2015

Date Uploaded to the Library:April 14, 2015

Tags:plaintiff, FOIA, IRS


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 10/22/14 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,
Plaintiff,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendant.
___________________________________
Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-1759
PLAINTIFF MEMORANDUM LAW OPPOSITION DEFENDANT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc., counsel and pursuant Rule 56(c) the Federal Rules
Civil Procedure, respectfully submits this memorandum law opposition the motion for
summary judgment Defendant Internal Revenue Service IRS grounds thereof, Judicial
Watch states follows:
Introduction. May 22, 2013, Plaintiff submitted Freedom Information Act FOIA request
Defendant seeking any and all records and communications concerning, regarding, related
the selection individuals for audit based information contained 501(c)(4) tax exempt
applications from January 2010 the date the request.1 Defendant subsequent search
efforts were unreasonably limited and did not satisfy its FOIA obligations. Although Plaintiff
request clearly included communications about the selection individuals for audit, Defendant
limited its search efforts databases and recordkeeping systems that would only identify records actual, formal audit referrals particular individuals, not communications discussions about
Plaintiff request does not seek information about any individual taxpayer, any individual
taxpayer tax return, any return information about individual taxpayers.
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 10/22/14 Page
using 501(c)(4) tax exempt applications for audit referrals generally. Put simply, Defendant did
not search locations where stores communications. Because Defendant search was
unreasonably limited, its motion for summary judgment should denied and Defendant must
undertake proper search.
II.
Argument.
Summary Judgment Standard. FOIA litigation, all litigation, summary judgment appropriate only when the
pleadings and declarations demonstrate that there genuine issue material fact and that the
moving party entitled judgment matter law. Anderson Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). reviewing motion for summary judgment under
FOIA, the court must view the facts the light most favorable the requester. Weisberg U.S.
Dep Justice, 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
Also FOIA litigation, but unlike most other federal litigation, the defending agency,
not the plaintiff, bears the burden proof. U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B) the burden the agency sustain its action accord Military Audit Project Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 739 (D.C. Cir. 1981). the summary judgment phase, the agency must demonstrate beyond material doubt that
its search was reasonably calculated uncover all relevant documents. Nation Magazine
U.S. Customs Serv., F.3d 885, 890 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (quoting Truitt U.S. Dep State, 897
F.2d 540, 542 (D.C. Cir. 1990)).
Defendant Has Failed Conduct Adequate Search for Documents.
Defendant did not make good faith effort conduct search for the requested records,
using methods which [were] reasonably expected produce the information requested. Id.
Defendant search efforts were limited databases and recordkeeping systems that would only
-2-
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 10/22/14 Page
identify records actual, formal audit referrals particular individuals, not communications
discussions about using 501(c)(4) tax exempt applications for audit referrals generally. Nor
would the databases Defendant searched identify records informal referrals based
information 501(c)(4) applications. Defendant did not search any databases recordkeeping
systems that would likely contain internal directives, memorandums, meeting notes, agendas, etc.,
responsive Plaintiff request. Defendant also did not search any databases recordkeeping
systems for emails responsive Plaintiff request. Simply put, Defendant did not search any
recordkeeping systems that would likely produce communications concerning, regarding,
related the selection individuals for audit clearly described Plaintiff FOIA request.
Limiting the search this narrow manner was unreasonable. Defendant own
memorandum and declarations admit that the database systems searched only record individual
taxpayer confidential identification information and internal project codes regarding audit
referrals. There indication that such recordkeeping systems include refer
communications regarding whether use application information basis for audits much less
the selection individuals for audit based information the IRS discovers through the 501(c)(4)
application process. Defendant must show that set proper scope for its search tailored
identify all relevant documents responsive Plaintiff request. Campbell U.S. Dep
Justice, 164 F.3d 20, (D.C. Cir. 1998).
While Defendant offers declarations describing detail search selected databases that
record actual, formal audits and individual personal taxpayer documents (information that
Plaintiff not seeking), provides explanation for excluding databases and recordkeeping
systems that retain communications, emails, discussions, and directives (information that Plaintiff
expressly seeking). The IRS has protocols place for searching databases and recordkeeping
-3-
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 10/22/14 Page
systems for electronically stored information requested litigation discovery pursuant
FOIA. Declaration Neguiel Hicks Judicial Watch, Inc. Internal Revenue Service, Case No.
14-1039 (RMC) (D. District Columbia), attached Exhibit Plaintiffs Response
Defendant Statement Material Facts Not Dispute and Plaintiff Separate Statement
Additional, Material Facts Plf Resp. Def Stmt. Facts paras. and 9-25. Logically, initial and obvious location search for communications would the IRS
centrally-managed Exchange Server Personal Storage Table PST The Exchange Server
PST stores, inter alia, the information contained employees email mailboxes (i.e., inboxes,
outboxes, sent items folders, etc.). Id. Yet Defendant ignored this obvious source
potentially responsive records and instead searched for actual, formal audit documents only.
The inadequacy issue not the lack results, but rather the unreasonably limited scope the search. Plaintiff FOIA request does not seek audit documents, but specifically asks for
communications (i.e., emails, discussions, correspondences, directives, etc.). Defendant
restriction its search databases that not maintain communications related documents
plainly insufficient. plausible reading Plaintiff FOIA request seeking any and all
records and communications concerning, regarding, related the selection individuals for
audit could justify Defendant exclusion from its search systems that maintain email and other
forms communications.
Emails produced response another Judicial Watch FOIA request reveal that top IRS
officials communicated with officials the U.S. Department Justice about criminally
prosecuting signers applications for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status based allegedly false
information contained applications. See Declaration Thomas Fitton Fitton Decl.
attached Exhibit Plf Resp. Def Stmt. Facts, para. Plaintiff does not presently
-4-
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 10/22/14 Page
know whether the IRS actually referred specific individuals the Justice Department for criminal
prosecution based information contained 501(c)(4) applications, but the subject referrals
was plainly discussed. Discussing criminal referrals generally and actually making criminal
referrals are two separate subjects. Likewise, discussing audit referrals generally and actually
making formal audit referrals are two separate subjects. Defendant only searched for the latter,
not the former, even though Plaintiff expressly requested the former. addition, the U.S. House Representatives Committee Ways and Means
determined that the IRS required certain applicants for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status submit lists donors their organizations part the application process and that nearly one ten donors
identified such donor lists were subject audit. See Fitton Decl. para. email
communication produced Judicial Watch response another FOIA request, high level IRS
official acknowledged that donor lists generally were neither needed nor used making
determinations tax exempt status. See Fitton Decl. para. thus appears that, despite
Defendant assertion that did not locate any records actual, formal audit referrals based
501(c)(4) applications, such audits did indeed occur.2 The failure search email
recordkeeping systems such the Exchange Server PST may well explain why responsive
records were located.
Plaintiff seeks more information related these facts that were discovered through the
production emails, discussions, and communications records not included the strict parameter formal audit documentation. Defendant cannot, good faith, justify its exclusion the
databases and recordkeeping systems that maintain these types communication adequate
Defendant acknowledges that application includes any papers submitted support such applications, which would include donor lists. Declaration Tamera Ripperda
para.
-5-
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 10/22/14 Page
effort conduct search for the requested records, using methods which [were] reasonably
expected produce the information requested. Nation Magazine, F.3d 890.
There question that Defendant search the specifically described systems was
thorough. However, thorough-but-plainly-too-narrow search does not meet FOIA
reasonableness standard. Weisberg, 705 F.2d 1351 The adequacy agency search
measured standard reasonableness and dependent upon the circumstances the case
(quoting McGehee Central Intelligence Agency, 697 F.2d 1095, 1100-01 (D.C. Cir. 1983) and
Founding Church Scientology National Security Agency, 610 F.2d 824, 834 (D.C. Cir.
1979)). agency cannot limit its search only one record system there are others that are
likely turn the information requested. Nation Magazine, F.3d 890 (internal citations
omitted) (emphasis added). Defendant search, limited these specifically described systems
and overlooking more relevant, essential databases, was unreasonably narrow and the IRS should
have conducted broader search. Plaintiff does not seek perfect search, only reasonable one required under the law. Defendant has not demonstrated that its search was reasonable. See
McGehee, 697 F.2d 1101 (an agency bears the burden establishing that any limitations
the search undertakes particular case comport with its obligation conduct reasonably
thorough investigation. Summary judgment not warranted and should denied.
III.
Conclusion.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant motion for
summary judgment denied and that the Court order the IRS engage reasonably adequate
search for records and communications responsive Plaintiff request.
-6-
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 10/22/14 Page
Dated: October 22, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
/s/ Ramona Cotca
D.C. Bar No. 501159
425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, 20024
(202) 646-5172
Attorney for Plaintiff
-7-
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-1 Filed 10/22/14 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,
Plaintiff,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendant.
___________________________________
Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-1759
PLAINTIFF RESPONSE DEFENDANT STATEMENT
MATERIAL FACTS NOT DISPUTE AND PLAINTIFF
SEPARATE STATEMENT ADDITIONAL, MATERIAL FACTS
Plaintiff Judicial Watch, counsel and pursuant Local Civil Rule 7.1(h), respectfully
submits this response Defendant Statement Material Facts Not Dispute and Plaintiff
Separate Statement Additional, Material Facts:
Plaintiff Response Defendant Statement Material Facts Not Dispute.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
10.
Undisputed.
11.
Undisputed.
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-1 Filed 10/22/14 Page
12.
Undisputed.
13.
Undisputed.
14.
Undisputed.
15.
Undisputed.
16.
Undisputed.
17.
Undisputed.
18.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
19.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
20.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
21.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
-2-
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-1 Filed 10/22/14 Page
22.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
23.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
24.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
25.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
26.
Undisputed.
27.
Undisputed.
28.
Undisputed.
29.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
-3-
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-1 Filed 10/22/14 Page
30.
Undisputed.
31.
Undisputed.
32.
Undisputed.
33.
Undisputed.
34.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
35.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
36.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
37.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
38.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
-4-
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-1 Filed 10/22/14 Page
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
39.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
40.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
41.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
42.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
43.
Undisputed.
44.
Undisputed.
45.
Undisputed.
46.
Undisputed.
47.
Undisputed.
-5-
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-1 Filed 10/22/14 Page
48.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
49.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
50.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
51.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
52.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
53.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
-6-
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-1 Filed 10/22/14 Page
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
54.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
55.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
56.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
57.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
58.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
59.
Undisputed.
-7-
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-1 Filed 10/22/14 Page
60.
Undisputed.
61.
Undisputed.
62.
Undisputed.
63.
Undisputed.
64.
Undisputed.
65.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
66.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
67.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
68.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
69.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
-8-
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-1 Filed 10/22/14 Page
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
70.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
71.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
72.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
73.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
74.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
-9-
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-1 Filed 10/22/14 Page
75.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
76.
Undisputed.
77.
Undisputed.
78.
Undisputed.
79.
Undisputed.
80.
Undisputed.
81.
Undisputed.
82.
Undisputed.
83.
Undisputed.
84.
Undisputed.
85.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
86.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
87.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-1 Filed 10/22/14 Page
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
88.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
89.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
90.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
91.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
92.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-1 Filed 10/22/14 Page
93.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
94.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
95.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
96.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
97.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
98.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-1 Filed 10/22/14 Page
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
99.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
100.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
101.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
102.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
103.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-1 Filed 10/22/14 Page
104.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
105.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
106.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
107.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
108.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
109.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-1 Filed 10/22/14 Page
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
110.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
111.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
112.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
113.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
114.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
115.
Plaintiff disputes that Employment Tax has records responsive this FOIA
request. Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny the remainder the paragraph. See Judicial
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-1 Filed 10/22/14 Page
Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the asymmetrical
distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA cases).
116.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
117.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
118.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
119.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
120.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
121.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-1 Filed 10/22/14 Page
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
122.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
123.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
124.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
125.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
126.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-1 Filed 10/22/14 Page
127.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
128.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
129.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
130.
Plaintiff lacks knowledge confirm deny whether such event occurred. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. Food and Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting the
asymmetrical distribution knowledge between FOIA requester and agency FOIA
cases).
II.
Plaintiff Separate Statement Additional, Material Facts.
According records produced obtained Judicial Watch response
Freedom Information Act FOIA request, top IRS officials communicated with officials
the U.S. Department Justice about criminally prosecuting signers applications for 501(c)(4)
tax exempt status based allegedly false information contained applications. See
Declaration Thomas Fitton, attached Exhibit para.
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-1 Filed 10/22/14 Page
According records obtained response Judicial Watch FOIA request,
high level IRS official acknowledged that donor lists generally were neither needed nor used
making determinations tax exempt status. See Declaration Thomas Fitton, para.
According the U.S. House Representatives Committee Ways and Means,
the IRS required certain applicants for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status submit lists donors
their organizations part the application process, and nearly one ten donors identified
such donor lists were subject audit. See Declaration Thomas Fitton, para.
Defendant has protocols place for searching databases and recordkeeping
systems for electronically stored information requested litigation discovery pursuant
FOIA. See Declaration Neguiel Hicks Judicial Watch, Inc. Internal Revenue Service,
Case No. 14-1039 (RMC) (D. District Columbia), attached Exhibit paras. and 9-25.
Defendant did not search any databases recordkeeping systems that would
likely contain internal directives, memorandums, meeting notes, agendas, etc., responsive
Plaintiff request. Nor did Defendant search any databases recordkeeping systems for
responsive emails. See Declaration Tamera Ripperda para. Declaration Dagoberto
Gonzalez paras. 6-7; Declaration David Horton paras. 4-6; Declaration Cheryl
Claybough paras. 4-6; Declaration Karen Schiller paras. 5-9.
Defendant limited its search actual, formal audit referrals the Exempt
Organization Unit and the three divisions within the IRS that conduct audits individuals. See
Declaration Tamera Ripperda para. Declaration Dagoberto Gonzalez paras. 6-7;
Declaration David Horton paras. 4-6; Declaration Cheryl Claybough paras. 4-6;
Declaration Karen Schiller paras. 5-9.
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-1 Filed 10/22/14 Page
The databases and recordkeeping systems searched would only identify records
actual, formal audit referrals particular individuals, not communications discussions about
using 501(c)(4) tax exempt applications for audit referrals generally. Nor would identify
records informal referrals based information 501(c)(4) applications. See Declaration
Tamera Ripperda para. Declaration Dagoberto Gonzalez paras. 6-7; Declaration
David Horton paras. 4-6; Declaration Cheryl Claybough paras. 4-6; Declaration
Karen Schiller paras. 5-9.
Dated: October 22, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
/s/ Ramona Cotca
D.C. Bar No. 501159
425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, 20024
(202) 646-5172
Attorney for Plaintiff
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-2 Filed 10/22/14 Page
EXHIBIT
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-2 Filed 10/22/14 Page
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-2 Filed 10/22/14 Page
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-2 Filed 10/22/14 Page
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-2 Filed 10/22/14 Page
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-2 Filed 10/22/14 Page
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-2 Filed 10/22/14 Page
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-2 Filed 10/22/14 Page
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-2 Filed 10/22/14 Page
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-2 Filed 10/22/14 Page
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-2 Filed 10/22/14 Page
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-3 Filed 10/22/14 Page
EXHIBIT
1:13-cv-01759-EGS
Case 1:14-cv-01039-RMC Document 20-3 Filed 10/22/14 Page
10-3
10/01/14
1:13-cv-01759-EGS
Case 1:14-cv-01039-RMC Document 20-3 Filed 10/22/14 Page
10-3
10/01/14
1:13-cv-01759-EGS
Case 1:14-cv-01039-RMC Document 20-3 Filed 10/22/14 Page
10-3
10/01/14
1:13-cv-01759-EGS
Case 1:14-cv-01039-RMC Document 20-3 Filed 10/22/14 Page
10-3
10/01/14
1:13-cv-01759-EGS
Case 1:14-cv-01039-RMC Document 20-3 Filed 10/22/14 Page
10-3
10/01/14
1:13-cv-01759-EGS
Case 1:14-cv-01039-RMC Document 20-3 Filed 10/22/14 Page
10-3
10/01/14
1:13-cv-01759-EGS
Case 1:14-cv-01039-RMC Document 20-3 Filed 10/22/14 Page
10-3
10/01/14
1:13-cv-01759-EGS
Case 1:14-cv-01039-RMC Document 20-3 Filed 10/22/14 Page
10-3
10/01/14
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document 20-4 Filed 10/22/14 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
Plaintiff,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 13-1759-EGS
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon consideration Defendant Motion for Summary Judgment, Judicial Watch, Inc.
Opposition Defendant Motion for Summary Judgment, any replies thereto, any oral argument
and the record herein, hereby
ORDERED that Defendant Motion for Summary Judgment DENIED, and further
ORDERED that Defendant IRS engage reasonably adequate search for records and
communications responsive Plaintiff request and produce all such responsive, non-exempt
documents Plaintiff within thirty (30) days entry this Order.
Dated:
U.S. District Court Judge
Cc:
All counsel record