Case 1:16-cv-07020-LAK Document 7 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 7

PREET BHARARA
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
By: ELIZABETH TULIS
Assistant United States Attorney
86 Chambers Street, Third Floor
New York, New York 10007
Tel: (212) 637-2725
Fax: (212) 637-2702
Email: elizabeth.tulis@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY and
CHARLIE SAVAGE,
Plaintiffs,

16 Civ. 7020 (LAK)
ANSWER

v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.
Defendant U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ” or the “Defendant”), by and through its
attorney, Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, answers
Plaintiffs’ complaint on information and belief as follows:
1. Paragraph 1 of the complaint consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of this action and
the relief sought, to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, denies that
Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought or any relief.
2. Paragraph 2 consists of general allegations characterizing DOJ’s role with respect to
“counterterrorism legal policies” allegedly established “[i]n the aftermath of September 11” and
the nature of the alleged policies that are irrelevant to the claims in this action and to which no
response is required.

 Case 1:16-cv-07020-LAK Document 7 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 7

3. The first sentence of paragraph 3 characterizes Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests, and
Defendant respectfully refers the Court to those requests for a true and complete statement of their
contents. Denies the allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 3.
4. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 4.
5. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 5.
6. Admits that the Department of Justice is a federal agency; the remainder of paragraph
6 consists of a legal conclusion, to which no response is required.
7. Paragraph 7 consists of a legal conclusion regarding the Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction, to which no response is required.
8. Paragraph 8 consists of a legal conclusion regarding venue, to which no response is
required.
9. Paragraph 9 consists of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, denies the allegations in paragraph 9.
10. Paragraph 10 characterizes Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests, and Defendant respectfully refers
the Court to the requests for a true and complete statement of their contents.
11. Admits the allegations in paragraph 11.
12. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 12. With respect to the second sentence of paragraph
12, admits that, on January 15, 2016, Plaintiff Charlie Savage, by email, notified DOJ of a “typo”
in one of his FOIA requests, specifically, that the “Special Interagency Task Force on Interrogation
and Transfer Policies” referenced in his request was “established by EO 13491, not EO 13493,”

2

 Case 1:16-cv-07020-LAK Document 7 Filed 10/11/16 Page 3 of 7

and Defendant respectfully refers the Court to that communication for a true and complete
statement of its contents.
13. Admits the allegations in paragraph 13.
14. Admits the allegations in paragraph 14.
15. Denies the allegations in paragraph 15, and avers that in January 2016, Kevin Tiernan,
of the Records and FOIA unit of DOJ’s National Security Division, informed Plaintiff Charlie
Savage by email: “If my reading of your request is correct, I also need to let you know that the
final reports of the task forces established by these executive orders are responsive to other FOIA
requests that are the subject of ongoing FOIA litigation. Our review of these documents is not
complete, but I anticipate that we will be able to respond to your request for these reports by the
end of this month, or soon thereafter.”
16. Admits the allegations in paragraph 16.
17. Denies the allegations in paragraph 17, and avers that on August 8, 2016, Douglas
Hibbard of DOJ’s Office of Information Policy (“OIP”) informed Plaintiffs that OIP was in receipt
of Plaintiffs’ request and that OIP was conducting its initial review.
18. Admits that DOJ has not provided a final response to Plaintiffs’ request, avers that DOJ
has been in communication with Plaintiffs regarding their request, and otherwise denies the
allegations in paragraph 18.
19. Admits the allegations in paragraph 19.
20. Paragraph 20 consists of allegations regarding a particular Government surveillance
program that are irrelevant to the claims in this action and to which no response is required.
21. Paragraph 21 characterizes certain passages in the Joint Inspector General Report on
the President’s Surveillance Program that were released by the Government in January 2016 in

3

 Case 1:16-cv-07020-LAK Document 7 Filed 10/11/16 Page 4 of 7

response to a prior FOIA request filed by Plaintiffs, and the Government respectfully refers the
Court to those passages for a true and complete statement of their contents.
22. Admits the allegations in paragraph 22.
23. Denies the allegations in paragraph 23.
24. Admits that DOJ received a FOIA request from Plaintiffs dated May 10, 2016, and that
Plaintiffs also submitted a FOIA request to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence dated
May 10, 2016. The remainder of paragraph 24 consists of a characterization of two of Plaintiffs’
FOIA requests, and Defendant respectfully refers the Court to those requests for a true and
complete statement of their contents.
25. Paragraph 25 characterizes the contents of Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests, and Defendant
respectfully refers the Court to those requests for a true and complete statement of their contents.
26. Paragraph 26 characterizes the contents of Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests, and Defendant
respectfully refers the Court to those requests for a true and complete statement of their contents.
27. Paragraph 27 characterizes the contents of Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests, and Defendant
respectfully refers the Court to those requests for a true and complete statement of their contents.
28. Paragraph 28 characterizes the contents of a November 6, 2015, opinion of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court, and Defendant respectfully refers the Court to that opinion for a
true and complete statement of its contents.
29. Admits the allegations in paragraph 29.
30. Denies the allegations in paragraph 30.
31. Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-30, above.
32. Paragraph 32 consists of legal conclusions and Plaintiffs’ characterization of FOIA, to
which no response is required.

4

 Case 1:16-cv-07020-LAK Document 7 Filed 10/11/16 Page 5 of 7

33. Paragraph 33 consists of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, denies the allegations in paragraph 33.
34. Denies the allegations in paragraph 34.
35. Denies the allegations in paragraph 35.
36. Denies the allegations in paragraph 36.
37. Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-36, above.
38. Paragraph 38 consists of legal conclusions and Plaintiffs’ characterization of FOIA, to
which no response is required.
39. Paragraph 39 consists of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, denies the allegations in paragraph 39.
40. Denies the allegations in paragraph 40.
41. Denies the allegations in paragraph 41.
42. Denies the allegations in paragraph 42.
43. Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-42, above.
44. Paragraph 44 consists of legal conclusions and Plaintiffs’ characterization of FOIA, to
which no response is required.
45. Paragraph 45 consists of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, denies the allegations in paragraph 45.
46. Denies the allegations in paragraph 46.
47. Denies the allegations in paragraph 47.
48. Denies the allegations in paragraph 48.
49. Paragraph 49 contains Plaintiffs’ request for relief, to which no response is required; to
the extent a response is required, denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought or any relief.

5

 Case 1:16-cv-07020-LAK Document 7 Filed 10/11/16 Page 6 of 7

50. Paragraph 50 contains Plaintiffs’ request for relief, to which no response is required; to
the extent a response is required, denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought or any relief.
51. Paragraph 51 contains Plaintiffs’ request for relief, to which no response is required; to
the extent a response is required, denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought or any relief.
52. Paragraph 52 contains Plaintiffs’ request for relief, to which no response is required; to
the extent a response is required, denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought or any relief.
DEFENSES
Any allegations not specifically admitted, denied, or otherwise answered are hereby
denied. For further defenses, Defendant alleges as follows:
First Defense
Defendant has exercised due diligence in processing Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests, and
exceptional circumstances exist that necessitate additional time for Defendant to continue its
processing of some or all of Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C).
Second Defense
Some or all of the requested documents, or portions thereof, are exempt from disclosure.
See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).
Third Defense
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ requests for relief to the extent
that they exceed the relief authorized under FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552.
Fourth Defense
One or more of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by res judicata.
Fifth Defense
One or more of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by collateral estoppel.

6

 Case 1:16-cv-07020-LAK Document 7 Filed 10/11/16 Page 7 of 7

Defendant may have additional defenses which are not known at this time but which may
become known through further proceedings. Accordingly, Defendant reserves the right to assert
each and every affirmative or other defense that may be available, including any defenses
available pursuant to Rules 8 and 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment dismissing the complaint and granting such
other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate, including costs and disbursements.
Dated: New York, New York
October 11, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
PREET BHARARA
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
Attorney for Defendant
By: /s/ Elizabeth Tulis
ELIZABETH TULIS
Assistant United States Attorney
U.S. Attorney’s Office, SDNY
86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
T. (212) 637-2725
F. (212) 637-2702
elizabeth.tulis@usdoj.gov

7